HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 GEN PLN AMEND 8-6-9001 1 T
t
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AUGUST 61 1990
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Public Hearing No. 3
8-6-90
Inter - Com
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 90-01; A REQUEST BY FIVE
PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTED BY DIVERSIFIED REAL PROPERTY
mawsaFMENT _ MUP A im'UT .r^%.LTM
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 90-95
denying General Plan Amendment 90-01.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for a 2.3 acre
project area located in the vicinity of the northeast corner of
Holt and Warren Avenues to accommodate multi -family development.
The applicant is presently not the owner of the property, however,
he does intend to purchase and develop a portion of the project
site. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the Land
Use Designation from Single -Family Residential to Multi -Family
Residential (Attachments A and B provide statistical summary,
project location and includes applicant's justification).
The subject site to be affected by the proposed General Plan
Amendment currently contains six(6)
five (5) single-family residences. The propertydisscurreltlyzoned
d with
E-4 (Residential Estate) District. Surrounding properties to the
West, North, and East are designated on the Orange County General
Land Use Plan as Medium -Low Density Residential which allows for a
density range of 2 - 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The North Tustin
Specific Plan has zoned these residential areas as RSF (Residential
Single -Family) . Subject properties to the West, North and East are
also currently developed with single-family residences. To"the
south of the subject property, across Warren Avenue, on the east
side of Holt, properties have been recently developed with attached
multi -family units and are designated MF (Multi -Family Residential)
on the Tustin General Plan Land Use Map and zoned R-3 (2800) Multi -
Family Residential. A Specific Plan (No. 6) was approved in 1981
for these properties to provide development standards and
regulations regarding land use, circulation and design guidelines
on the property. See Attachment C for existing General Plan and
Zoning designations.
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 2
Subject properties included within the proposed General Plan
Amendment (plus one lot to the north of these
properties)
approved for annexation to the City of Tustin on June 19, 1989.
During annexation deliberations before the Local Agency Formatio
Commission (LAFCO) and City of Tustin, concern was expressed by
n
residents in the area that the owners of the site expected the area
to be rezoned to higher densities, similar to those densities south
p
of Warren Avenue on the east side of Holt Avenue, upon completion
of the annexation. Both staff and the City Council stated that
rezone to allow higher density development was not part of the
annexation and would require a change to the General Plan Land Use
Designation. The February 61 1989 staff report and City Council
minutes and LAFCO minutes from April 19, 1989 (identified
Attachment D) all indicate the City's as
development was not guaranteed as parteosition that of the annexation.
higher density
xation.
In conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment the
applicant has also submitted applications to rezone the same site
and a tentative tract map and Design Review to cons
truct
attached dwellings on the southern three properties of the site
(Parcels 1, 2 & 3) to create a development similar to the project
south of Warren Avenue. While these applications have not yet been
determined complete, the applicant's determination on whether
or
not to proceed through the review process on the applications will
depend upon the outcome of the proposed General Plan Amendme
Needed revisions to the three incomplete applications nt.
anticipated to be costly and time consuming and would not are
required if the proposed General Plan Amendment is denied.
A public hearing notice denoting the time, date and location of
this hearing was published in the Tustin News and posted on t
site. Property owners within 300 feet of the projecthe
notified by mail pursuant to State Law. Hearing notices were
posted on the property, at City Hall and the Police Department.
In
addition, a copy of the meeting's agenda and staff report for this
item were made available to the applicant. In response to public
notification, numerous calls and several letters from neighboring
Opposition t
residents have been received in o ct
(Attachment E). o the project
DISCUSSION
The project proposes to change the existing single-family
designation for 6 parcels to multi -family residential. Parcel
contains 61600 square feet. Parcel 2 is approximately 12 000
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 3
square feet and the remaining Parcels 3 through 6 are all
approximately 20,000 square feet in size. All properties are
developed with single-family residences, except for Parcel 3 which
is vacant. Approval of the Amendment would allow for a maximum of
57 dwelling units on the site. A subsequent zone change of the
site would be necessary if the amendment is approved in order for
the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan Designation. The
applicant has represented that it would only be his intention to
develop the property at a density of 15 units per acre or 34 units
on the total site.
Staff have evaluated the proposed General Plan Amendment and
examined the following: compatibility with surrounding
developments; General Plan consistency; consistency with the North
Tustin Specific Plan; establishment of the best logical boundary is
to separate multi -family and single-family uses; impact on future
annexation proposals; and available project alternatives. The
following discussion reviews each of these items.
1. Compatibility with Surrounding Development - The areas to the
West, North and East of this project site are characterized by
very low density residential development. Lots are generally
very large and predominantly contain low profile one-story
homes with large setbacks and considerable open space and
architectural variety. The average lot sizes in the area are
as follows: to the west across Holt approximately 16,000
square feet (or three dwelling units per acre) ; to the North,
lots are approximately 12,000 square feet in size; and to the
East across the flood control channel lots are approximately
15,000 square feet in size. Properties are developed with
single -story homes ranging in size from approximately 2,300
square feet to 21800 square feet with average front yard
setbacks along Holt Avenue ranging from 50 to 60 feet. Many
homes to the North and East also maintain approximate 50 foot
rear yard setbacks from the flood control channel. In
addition, a majority of the homes along Holt Avenue in the
vicinity of the proposed project are oriented toward Holt
Avenue and have their main access oriented along Holt Avenue.
This provides for an uncrowded, uncluttered, open streetscape
with shrubs and trees buffering development, and defining the
street.
L In contrast, residential development south of Warren Avenue on
the east side of Holt Avenue is considered higher density
multi -family residential development approximately 15 dwelling
units per acre with unit sizes averaging 11400 square feet.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 4
The site contains a mixture of two and three unit buildings,
all are two-story, and all units are oriented toward the
interior of the site with their rear yards facing Holt Avenue.
Units maintain a 20. foot building setback from Holt Avenue and
15 foot setbacks from Warren Avenue and from the flood control
channel. There is little landscaping around the perimeter of
the buildings to reduce the scale of buildings nor enhance
their compatibility with surrounding single family units to
the north. The appearance from Holt Avenue can be
characterized by buildings who turn their rear elevations
toward Holt Avenue, crowded close to the streetscape with
little landscaping and no open views into the project.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in
development similar to the project south of Warren Avenue,
which is not considered consistent with the predominant
character of developments surrounding the majority site.
Approval of GPA 90-01 would encourage larger buildings, less
open space, smaller dwelling units and considerably smaller
setbacks from Holt Avenue resulting in a closed -in feeling on
the Holt Avenue streetscape. In addition, higher densities
proposed by the General Plan Amendment have the potential to
reduce the open appearance of the neighborhood and could
result in less privacy for all properties surrounding the
project site.
2. General Plan Consistency - Policies contained in the Tustin
General Plan Housing Element recommend the conservation and
improvement of existing residential neighborhoods. Since the
proposed project site is surrounded on three sides by low
density, single-family development, the proposed amendment
would permit the development of the site with higher density
multiple family uses that will be in sharp contrast to
predominant land use patterns in the surrounding neighborhood.
This would discourage any efforts toward neighborhood
conservation and would only increase the expectation for and
pressure to convert more single-family properties to multi-
family uses along Holt Avenue. As a result, it would also be
a disincentive for single family homeowners to maintain their
properties particularly for absentee landowners who will have
the expectation of future higher density rezonings in the
area.
The Housing Element of the Tustin General Plan includes
policies and goals relating to single-family and multi -family
developments. The Housing Element recognizes an imbalance of
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 5
owner -occupied versus renter -occupied units and strongly
encourages development of owner -occupied housing types.
Presently, 90% of all the rental units within the City are
multi -family housing types and 79% of the owner -occupied units
are within single-family dwellings. The City's Housing
Element of the General Plan indicates in 1989, 73% of the
housing within Tustin were multi -family units, which is
significantly higher than the county -wide average of 30%
multi -family housing. Therefore, in order to meet the City's
goal of correcting this imbalance, it is important to
encourage the development of single-family units.
There are no legal tools that can be applied to require only
owner -occupied housing and the decision of which product type
is constructed is the sole discretion of the property owner,
since both owner -occupied and renter -occupied dwellings are
permitted in the Multi -Family Land Use Designation. The
proposed amendment would be creating a strong opportunity for
additional rental units which is in conflict with General Plan
Policies.
The City's Land Use Element of the General Plan also includes
a number of goals, objectives and implementation measures that
are relevant to this amendment. They are as follows:
A. To promote a balanced community with buffered land uses.
B. To provide a variety of housing accommodations with
emphasis on single-family residential areas.
C. To preserve the low density exclusive characteristic of
the foothill area.
D. To annex unincorporated areas so as to provide uniformity
of land use and development standards.
After reviewing this proposed land use amendment in light of
the above noted policies, the amendment would not provide for
adequate buffer between single-family and multi -family uses
nor would it preserve the low density characteristic of the
surrounding area. In addition, the proposal would eliminate
single-family development and could result in development
standards that would be in sharp contrast to the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposed amendment is not consistent with
the goals and objectives of the City of Tustin General Plan.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 6
3. Consistencv with North Tustin Specific Plan - In 1982, the
Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted the North Tustin
Specific Plan which included a detailed analysis of land use,
circulation, noise, design characteristics and project traffic
volumes. The plan was updated and amended in 1986. The plan
included recommendations for lot consolidations, changes in
land use designations and establishment of development
standards and guidelines. Although the specific plan
identified that many of the single-family residences on Holt
Avenue have direct access to an arterial highway, it stated
that this access is not a problem because many of the
residences have circular drives or adequate on-site turnaround
area. The Specific Plan designates the project site for
single-family development with a minimum lot size of 10,000
square feet. Although the project site is no longer a part of
the North Tustin Specific Plan Area, the proposed amendment is
not consistent with the design guidelines of the Plan or the
concept of preserving the single-family character of
development along Holt Avenue.
4. The Best Location for a Logical General Plan Boundary - The
applicant believes that the Holt Avenue and the flood control
channel would provide a natural separation between the multi-
family and single-family, should the City annex the area north
to Seventeenth Street. The general area bounded by
Seventeenth Street to the North, Newport Avenue to the East,
Irvine Boulevard to the South and Prospect Avenue to the West
is predominantly low-density, large -lot, single-family
dwellings with higher intensity uses along the boundary of the
area. Based on a review of existing uses, General Plan
designation and zoning, the proposed multi -family General Plan
designation for the project site, and the applicant's
expectation that there would be future extensions of this
designation north to Seventeenth Street, would bisect the
existing established residential neighborhood and increase the
pressure to convert other single-family parcels to higher
density uses in the area. The proposal does not provide for
a logical transition between multi -family and single-family
uses because the proposal will result in development of a
significantly different character than the existing single-
family dwellings. The most logical boundary to separate
single-family and multi -family uses is a street, such as
Warren Avenue, rather than in the middle of the block, as
proposed by the applicant. The street provides for adequate
separation and buffering between uses. In addition, extending
the boundary to mid -block could be interpreted as "spot -
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 7
redesignating" which is not recommended or supported by good
planning practice.
5. Impacts on Future Annexation Proposals - Approval of this
General Plan Amendment and the probable subsequent development
on the project site could seriously impact future proposals to
annex properties located in the North Tustin area to the City
of Tustin. Last year during City review of the proposed
annexation of the subject property, neighboring property
owners voiced strong opposition to the annexation because of
their fear that the City would not adhere to and maintain the
North Tustin Specific Plan regulations. At that time, several
Council members stated their opposition to an amendment to
increase density. A change in direction to modify the
character of the North Tustin area after annexation will
weaken the City's credibility on future annexation proposals,
particularly where residents place emphasis on maintaining
existing land use character.
6. Alternatives to the Proposal- There are several alternatives
to the proposed General Plan amendment that would allow for
new development on the site which may be more compatible with
the surrounding area. The three alternatives are listed and
discussed below.
A. Retain the existing single-family General Plan
designation and resubdivide properties into single-family
parcels consistent with the existing E-4 zoning
designation. The character of the Holt Avenue
streetscape with large setbacks could be maintained and
the general appearance of the new development would be
compatible with surrounding single-family (no General
Plan Amendment needed).
B. Retain the existing single-family General Plan
designation and develop new residences on existing lots.
This alternative maintains the existing property lines
and existing land use designation and encourages
alterations/additions to the existing homes or
construction of new homes. With this option, new
development can easily meet the present E-4 development
standards (with the exception of Parcel 1) and maintain
a character of development consistent with the
surrounding area. Although Parcel 1 is below the minimum
lot size for E-4, new single-family residences could be
built on the property, however it may be difficult to
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 8
meet the setback requirements. A lot line adjustment
could be processed to increase the size of Parcel 1 and
enable the new development to more easily meet the
setback requirements.
C. Change the General Plan Designation to Planned Community
Residential and establish maximum dwelling unit density
and permit only detached single-family development by
requiring Planned Community regulations which ensure this
is a required development standard. This development
option could allow for the development of detached
single-family homes similar to the building size of the
surrounding area. The advantage of a PC designation is
that there is some flexibility with design standards such
as minimum lot width or setbacks. This could facilitate
the development of new single-family homes that maintain
the Holt Avenue streetscape and the setbacks from
adjoining properties, while at the same time increases
the total number of units on the site. The applicant is
currently working on a development plan for the site,
however the proposal is for attached multi -family
development not single-family residences as previously
noted.
CONCLUSIONISUMMARY
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed General Plan Amendment
to change the Land Use Designation from Single -Family to Multi -
Family Residential should be denied for the following reasons:
1. The project is inconsistent with the goals, policies and
implementation measures of the Housing and Land Use
Elements of the General Plan;
2. The project is inappropriate in light of the
predominantly single-family character of the surrounding
area;
3. The project would not provide for a logical transition
between multi -family and single-family residential areas;
4. The project is inconsistent with the North Tustin
Specific Plan; and
Community Development Department
City Council Report
General Plan Amendment 90-01
August 6, 1990
Page 9
5. The project would negatively affect the City's future
annexation proposals and decrease the City's credibility
in this effort.
For these reasons, it is recommended that the City Council adopt
Resolution No. 90-95 denying GPA 90-01.
Sara J Pashalides
Associ to Planner
SJP:CAS:kbc
Attachments:
Resolution No.
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
r ;
Christine A. Shinglet
Director of Community Development
90-95
Community Development Department
1
3
4
5
G
1
8
10.
1l'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 90-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-01, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY TO MF (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 18281 WARREN
AVENUE 14442, 14392, 14382 AND 14352 HOLT
AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. Government Code Section 65356.1 provides that
when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the legislative body may amend a
part of the General Plan.
B. In accordance with Government Code Section
65356.1, a public hearing was duly noticed,
called, and held on July 9 and August 6 on the
application of the Diversified Real Property
Management to reclassify the land use
designation from SF (Single Family) to MF
(Multi -Family Residential) on the properties
located at 18281 Warren Avenue, 14442, 14392,
14382 and 14352 Holt Avenue.
C. The existing single-family designation is in
the best interest of the public and
surrounding property owners, in that Warren
Avenue is a more appropriate buffer between
multi -family residences and the existing
single-family neighborhood.
D. The proposed land use change is not consistent
with other elements of the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element and the
Housing Element which discourage creation of
additional multi -family designated land, in
that there is currently an imbalance of
renter -occupied housing versus owner -occupied
housing and the City cannot require owner -
occupied versus renter -occupied housing as
both would be permitted within a multi -family
designation.
E. The proposed amendment to multi -family
residential is inappropriate because the
proposal would be inconsistent with the
predominate character of the surrounding area.
3
4
5
G
i
8
11
12
13
14
15
1
1
1.
1'
21
2'
21
2;
I
2t:
2(
2',
D
Resolution No. 90-95
Page 2
The surrounding area is comprised of very low
density residential developments with large
setbacks and considerable open space. The
amendment would encourage larger buildings,
less open space, smaller dwelling units and
considerably smaller setbacks from Holt
Avenue.
F. The proposed land use amendment is
inconsistent with the North Tustin Specific
Plan which designated properties adjacent to
Holt Avenue for single-family development and
encourages the preservation of existing
single-family neighborhoods.
II. The City Council hereby denies General Plan
Amendment 90-01.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, held on the 6th day of
August, 1990.
MARY WYNN
City Clerk
RICHARD EDGAR
Mayor
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 3
,eDirectoreplied that it is similar to the City Mana s
cur t r conference room, but that it is only intended for sonal
confer es; that if rooms are needed for larger meetien hey will
be availa through scheduling;.and that the plansvided were
consistent w the schematics that the City Coil it had approved
for the project.
The Public Bearing wa`�:-Qpened at 7:23 n.4.
The Public Bearing was clos t 4 p.m.
Commissioner Baker note at the Com ' sion has seen the project
several times, and th he sees no probl with the proposal.
Co m'ssio e. B moved,Shaheen seco de to approve the
Environmenta etermination for the project by ado ny Resolution
No. 2800 a- submitted. Motion carried 4-0.
Commi ioner Baker moved. Shaheen seconded to approve Condi oval
Us permit 90-16 by adoption of Resolution No. 2799 as submit
tion carried 4-0.
5. General Plan Amendment 90-01
Af
APPLICANT: DENNIS PAQUETTE
DIVERSIFIED REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
1500 ADAMS AVENUE, #307
COS'T'A MESA, CA 92626
OWNERS: MARY LEWIS FAMILY TRUST
PA'r AND IRA THELEN
RU'THANNA CHASE
JOSEPHINE WOODBURY
CAMIEL HAEGEMAN
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOLT AND WARREN AVENUE
ZONING: R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN'T'IAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
REQUEST: TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNA'i-ON
OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2798 recommending to the City Council denial
of GPA 90-01.
Presentation: Sara Pashalides, Associate Planner
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the alternative recommendations were
noticed in the Public Hearing.
Staff replied that Alternatives A and B would not require a General
Plan Amendment, that Alternate C was not advertised.
The Director replied that renoticing would be required if the
applicant would be amenable to table a request rather than receive
a denial.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it applied to the three options or
just to option C.
Staff replied that the Commission could also adopt a fourth option
by retaining the General Plan Designation and deny the General Plan
Amendment, which would allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue
either option A or B.
Planning Commission Minutes
- July 9, 1990
Page 4
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if alternatives A and B could be
addressed this evening.
Staff affirmed, since no Conditional Use Permit was required; but
noted that if the applicant wanted to re -subdivide the lots then a
future Public Hearing would be required.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m.
,john Lehman, 14032 Holt, noted that his house was the last one at
the north end of the street; he is a 16 year resident; he is
worried about the area being annexed around him in strips; that
with annexing, multi -family density creeps; that he would rather
have a friendly relationship with the City and retain the single-
family character; that at rush hour, he is a prisoner in his home
due to the traffic at Holt and 17th, and that the addition of more
multi -family homes on }colt would increase the traffic problems; and
that additional families would increase the noise level at the
nearby park.
Brent R. Fraser, 14411 Holt Avenue, noted that he is a business
owner in Tustin, with a family in the unincorporated area; that
multi -family dwellings would decrease the property values; and that
he hopes that the Commission considers Plan A.
Kirk Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, noted that he is a 38 year resident
of Holt Avenue; that he likes the character of the single-family
homes with the large setbacks; that the homes along Holt are being
remodeled and improved; that encouragement by the Commission to
remain a single-family area would encourage renovation; that they
should leave the lot sizes as they are; and lie noted that people
are willing to invest in the area as it is.
William McNiff, 14411 Clarissa Lane, noted that the developer
intended the egress for the project be onto Warren Avenue, but he
doubted if the applicant intended to provide improvements to Warren
all the way to Newport; and that the neighbors attempt to maintain
the appearance of their homes.
Roy Vincent, 14042 holt, noted that the houses that existed befog!
the previous multi -family development were allowed to deteriorate;
feels that the neighborhood might allow the rest of ttie houses to
deteriorate as well if they feel that the encroachment will
continue; and that the City needs to look forward 10 years to
determine if this is what we want for the City.
Gregg Bunch, 14331 Holt Avenue, noted that he is restoring a 1920's
home and has invested at least $150,000; that with the pollution
from the traffic and parking he recommends denial of the project.
Otto Icahn, 14431 holt Avenue, noted that he built his home 38 years
ago; that he worked for the E-4 zoning; that the people annexed
into Tustin wanted to be in the E-4 zone, but that they now want to
sell to multi -family developers; that the decor, lifestyle and
upkeep will charge; and that lie would like someday to be in Tustin,
but not if this continues.
Tom Mau, 14102 Holt Avenue, noted that they invested everything
into their new home; that with 70% of the developments in the city
being multi -family, it is ludicrous to continue this type of
development; that they thought it was a nice community, but at this
rate there is no' -future in it; and that there will be more traffic
and congestion, which is not why they spent $200,000+ for their
home.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 5
Stephen Johnson, 11611 Arroyo, spokesman for the Foothills
Communities Association, noted that he was on the North Tustin
specific Plan committee when it was.planned; that the FCA predicted
the use of the North Tustin property along Holt and Newport which
resulted in enhanced use of the property; the FCA objects to the
proposal; asked the City to maintain the position of no increase in
density; noted that the City of Tustin is upside down in the
housing element; that lie cannot remember a true 10,000 foot lot
being developed since the 19601s; urged the City to maintain some
single-family developments to maintain a balance and character;
that Warren is a good boundary and that they should maintain the
zoning as it is.
Maureen Homan, 14371 Holt Avenue, noted that they have lived in
their house for 1 1/2 years and have spent $20-30,000 in
improvements; that more multi -family dwellings would decrease the
value of their home; noted that there would be a 1000% increase in
usage; that 57 more homes could mean in increase of 200 cars on
liolt; that there would be an increased amount of cars parked on
Holt; that there would be an increase in noise with additional
residents; and that they do not want a complex built like the one
on Pasadena.
Dennis Pacquette, applicant, noted that he prepared a specific plan
for 6 of the 7 parcels annexed into the City with a maximum of 35
units for 2.3 acres; that the notice sent by the City was
misleading in that it indicated the possibility of 25 units per
acre; that he now wants a maximum of 14 units on the three
southerly most parcels; that there is a high demand for housing in
Orange County; that lie has not recently seen a 10,000 foot lot
developed, as it is economically unfeasible; that he wants to build
quality homes in a great location; that the traffic can be diverted
away from Holt; that the boundaries of the flood control channel
and multi -family to the south would make it a natural area for
multi -family; that the availability of housing is the reason he is
building multi -family homes; that lie is interested in the site due
to the location; and that he could build affordable housing for
people who want to live in the Community.
Nancy Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, thanked staff for their
thorough report and noted that their effort built bridges instead
of walls; that the owners seemingly entered into an agreement
before the annexation, but Mayor Kennedy recommended against
rezoning at that time; that she feels this project is solely for
profit; that she likes the neighborhood the way it is; that Holt is
busy, but that the fast traffic on Warren, of which there is
already too much, would increase; that they currently know their
neighbors, and that a condominium project would separate the
community since it would tend to be a neighborhood of its own.
Elmer Bender, 18232 Lucero, noted that he has been a resident since
1957; that he agreed with the previous speakers; and that the
government is supposed to respond to the will of the people which
are mostly opposed to the change.
Kirk Hahn, 14431 Holt Avenue, commented on the developer's
statement: he would like a repeat of the units constructed south of
Warren; a letter submitted by the developer states that he cannot
meet the width standards for the driveway and that he cannot
provide the extra parking required; and noted that the size of the
parcel he wants to develop may require a spot zone change, which
might be prohibited.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 6
Joseph P. Hammer, 14082 Gershon, noted that the multi -family
development would be immediately in front of his home; that at the
back of his lot he will soon have the Edison substation; that being
locked in on both sides would devalue his property; read the last
page of the General Plan amendment regarding zone change 89-03;
that on his street there have been at least 12 houses to invest at
least $20,000 in the last two years; that they keep up their
neighborhood; that he feels that he is a 'Tustinite even though he
has a Santa Ana mailing address; and asked the Commission to please
consider families and friends and deny the rezoning.
Patricia Thelan, 14442 Holt Avenue, noted that her property -as
under consideration for change; that in 1950 when they bought their
home, there were 1,300 people in Tustin, now there are 48,000; that
they have had three zoning changes since then which they have never
protested; they annexed to 'Tustin because they felt they were part
of Tustin; that some people were protesting their decision
regarding their property, but that she felt that they would not
have their homes if they had protested; and that people should be
able to do with their property as they please as long as they are
not hurting anyone.
Roy Vincent, noted that his wife bought their property in the early
19501s; since then part of their land has been taken for road
widening and part for the drainage ditch; and that he sympathized
with Mrs. Thelan's problems, but that other people have lived there
as long as she has and it has no bearing on the matter.
Ilene Barcenas, 14402 Dall Lane, noted that she has lived there for
nine years; that since the condominiums south of Warren were
constructed traffic has become more congested and faster; commented
that her daughter was hit by a car on Bolt; and would like: to sets
the development stopped.
Scott Homan, 14371 Holt Avenue, noted that he was opposed to the
rezoning; that the increased density of the parcel site did not
allow an adequate buffer to adjacent parcels; that low-density next
to high would not flow right; his house was rundown when tie
purchased it and considered bulldozing it for condominiums, but he
is in love with the area and would never allow that to happen in
the area; and asked what controls would be put on the developer to
retain 14 units.
Brenda Kragenbrink, 18192 Wellington, noted that she also had a
neighbor child hit due to the traffic on Holt; that she has been a
resident since 1971; that some of the existing condominiums are
already up for sale; that the condominiums have not been there long
enough to determine if they will maintain their integrity; that
when she added to her home she maintained the neighbors' privacy;
that the area is very considerate of each other; and that the
neighbors want it to remain single-family dwellings.
Kathy Lehman, 14032 Holt Avenue, noted that at times the traffic is
so bad she cannot enter or leave her driveway; that her house has
been there 40 years; that the County is investing money in hopes
that the traffic problem at Holt and 17th Street will be resolved;
that there will be more accidents with more traffic; and that this
is not good for the County or the City.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.
Commissioner Shaheen commented that he had looked at the area and
compared it to several other areas; that the homes are lovely with
large lots; and that it is an excellent neighborhood and should be
maintained as it is.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 1990
Page 7
Commissioner Kasalek agreed and noted that there are a large number
of multi -family areas in Tustin; that when annexation was being
discussed, the City Council gave assurances that rezoning was not
intended; that the City would lose credibility if it rezoned the
area; and that she agreed to adopt the Resolution to deny the
project.
Commissioner Baker. asked for a clarification of the applicant's
comment regarding improper noticing.
Staff replied that the applicant was referring to the reference in
the notice regarding 25 units per acre and deemed it misleading;
that the applicant actually only needs to build 15 units per acre
when tie processes a specific plan for the site; but that the notice
had to state what the General Plan would authorize.
The Director commented that proposals of this nature would be
brought to the Commission concurrently, but with the significance
of this project, this one was brought in when it was complete,
while others were not complete as yet.
Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the E-4 zoning.
The Director replied that it was for Estate Residential; that there
were very few houses under this zoning; that the ordinance was
adopted so that there were areas of the County that would retain
that zoning when annexed.
Commissioner Baker commented that anyone has the right to ask for
something, but that does not mean that the citizens have to expect
it; and that if the City gave its word that the General Plan was
not to be changed with the annexation, then he felt it would be
inappropriate to change it at this time.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there is more than adequate multi-
family residences in the City; that it is the Commission's
obligation to try to maintain the neighborhood as it is; that they
should try to stop the escalation of R-3 zoning northerly on Holt;
that this has been compared to the 6th Street needs, but that 6th
Street has been rebuilt instead of being redeveloped as
condominiums; that the Planning Commission has to maintain and
encourage single-family development; that he appreciated the
brevity of the comments; and that the letters received indicated
that the residents did their homework.
Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to deny GPA 90-01 by
adoption of Resolution No. 2798 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0.
Tentative Parcel Map 90-104
APPLIC CMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
OWNER: 3199 A-3 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE
STA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
LOCATION: TH ROJECT SITE IS LOCATE OUTH OF THE I-5
FREEW ND WEST OF NEWPO ENUE, LOTS 1, 2 AND 3
OF NEWP0 VENUE T1 ; A PORTION OF LOT A OF
TRAGI' 541; P N OF LOT 15, BLOCK D OF
BALLARDS' ADD LOT 1 OF TRACT 519; AND A THREE
FOOT PORT F 1113" ' EET
ZONING: PLANNE MMUNITY COMME L
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: EGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15
REQUEST: TO CONSOLIDATE TEN (10) DOTS INTO (4).
e o - It is -recommended that the Planning Co 'ssion
ommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 90-104 to the 'ty
General Plan
Designation
Existing Density
Maximum Density
Zoning
Parcel Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Existing
Single -Family
Residential
2 dwelling units/acre
4 dwelling units/acre
E-4 (Residential Estate)
Proposed
Multi -Family
Residential
N/A
25 dwelling units/acre
N/A
size
Address
Owner
6,935
sq.
ft.
18281
Warren
Mary Lewis Family Trust
10,220
sq.
ft.
14442
Holt
Pat and Ira Thelen
22,600
sq.
ft.
vacant
Pat and Ira Thelen
20,000
sq.
ft.
14392
Holt
Ruthanna Chase
19,500
sq.
ft.
14382
Holt
Josephine Woodbury
19,000
sq.
ft.
14352
Holt
Camiel Haegeman
ATTACHMENT A
Community Development Department
r
14341
�
M
i
M
M .
r
t w
WitT
14361
W
i
�--
�
N
J
O
M
�
M
�
�o
�
Q
Q
r
r'
Z o
0
14391
Q
D
U
PROJECT AREA
r
J
r
tV
^ Lf) L /
cv)
M 6.
'd'
U
mt
r
i
r
■
NORWOOD
M
T
N
a0
PARK
M
t
r
�
T
M
TOO
{
N
M
r
M
r
r
�
fi
LUQ'
r
'd'
t
N
Ci
M
r
Bill 11511199115MMEMA
WARREN AVE.
18231
cv
THEODORA
�.
DR.
d'
18232
r -
co
14271
14321
■
14461
ATTA.CHMENT B
14341
9
14351
i
r
t w
Q
14361
W
i
Z
a
J
O
°C
14371
�o
U
Q
o
O
CD
cn
0
14391
Q
U-
U
U
J
14441
■
14461
ATTA.CHMENT B
JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE #89-03
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #90-1
The subject site consists of six separate properties
improved with five detached single family residences. The
area, when first subdivided in the late 1940's, was pri-
marily a rural agricultural area and in fact was for many
years used fro growing a variety of citrus crops. From
1960, the subject site has been used primarily for single
family detached housing.
From the early 1980's, along with the majority of
Orange County, the City of Tustin has experienced an un-
precedented demand for housing. The growth of the Orange
County industrial complex together with the explosive
growth of the service industry have precipitated this
housing demand within the County of Orange along with the
so called "bedroom communities" of Norco, Riverside and
as far away as Moreno Valley and Fontana. The tremendous
growth of these outlying communities have put a heavy
burden on existing transportation corridors causing an
urgent need to add new corridors and expand existing
freeways.
The subject property is bordered with single family
detached homes on the North, East and West sides and
multifamily housing on the South. The homes to the West
are of similiar density to those of the subject site, but
.OR, ii F. i { A Ams
ATTACHMENT B
APR 09 1990
C014?AL+rl', T Y 0r'.1/ r t?�!' I17
are seperated by a major North/South surface street (Holt
Ave.). The homes to the North and to the East of the
subject property are of significantly lower density to
that of the subject site and it should be mentioned that
the homes to the East are separated from the subject site
by a natural 55 foot wide flood control channel.
The American Institute of Appraisers defines "highest
and best use" of a property as "that use to which a pro-
perty can legally be put that will give the greatest
benefit to the property and/or owner, neighborhood,
government or municipality." In determining this use,
am independent or municipal appraiser would evaluate that
use for the subject property which would most benefit the
property itself, the neighborhood, the City and the owner(s)
of the property. It is the applicants belief that the
highest and best use of the subject property would be
that of the requested development and zoning for the
following reasons:
1) Property benefit - The property is basically sur-
rounded on three sides by side natural or man-made barriers
of surface streets and a flood control channel. The
changing neighborhood, size of the individual parcels
and conditions of the deteriorating residenses indicate
that it might be time to redevelop the property to a more
suitable use.
2) Neighborhood benefit - The proposed zoning and
development would serve to continue the rejuvination of
of the neighborhood by private entrepreners instead of
a redevelopment agency of the local city government. This
would be accomplished by replacing the older, functionally
obsolete detached homes with a high quality, architecturally
unique, aesthetically pleasing project which could only
enhance the neighborhood.
__ 3)-- City/Municipality benefits-.-'The-benefits to the City
of Tustin and the County of Orange are as follows:
A) Provides much needed, more affordable housing
within the City and County, mitigating some of the
commuter traffic which might normally occur.
B) The proposed project would generate development
fees for the City of Tustin, Tustin Unified School
District and the Eastern Transportation Corridor. Also
the proposed project, if approved, would create the
potential of 35 new homes (instead of the existing 5)
for the entire site and 14 (instead of the existing 2)
for the proposed development site. The resultant
property taxes assesed should well be in excess of
thirty times the current property tax assessments.
C) Property Owner benefits - The owners of the
property involved in the proposed development will benefit
in several ways. The owners of 14448 Holt Ave. (Mr. and
Mrs. Ira Thelen) have resided there since 1950. Over the
years, part of their property has been'taken for the widening
of both Bolt Ave. and Wqrren Ave. In fact, part of their
home is actually encroaching into the Warren Ave. right-
of -way. Because of their advancing age, the deter-
ioration of their property and personal illness, Mr.
and Mrs. Thelen are now in a position where they must
find more suitable housing. The owner of 18281 Warren
Ave. has occupied the property since 1960. Mrs. Lewis
is now 98 years old and recently had an accident inwhich
she suffered a broken hip. Her daughter, the trustee
of the revocable living trust which holds title to the
property, is now caring for her mother, so the property
is now vacant. Since being vacant, the property has
been vandalized and remains a potential hazard. The sale
of both of these properties will allow both owners to
proceed with their lives and hopefully have an easier,
more fulfulling life.
The owners of the balance of the property involved
in the zone change and general plan amendment will benefit
in knowing that their property has a specific development
plan formulated with their properties specific needs in
mind.
Finally, since Holt Ave. has evolved into a major
North/South commuter street, detached single family
development along the street contributes to traffic hazards
with cars pulling into and out of driveways. Developing
a specific plan for the subject property with a private
street would alleviate this hazard as traffic would be
diverted to Warren Ave. via the private street. Warren Ave.
would also be improved which would also alleviate some
traffic hazards which now exist.
.Should the City of Tustin eventually annex the bal-
ance of the East side of Holt Ave. up to 17th St., it
would seem perfectly logical and feasible to permit a
similiar type of zoning and development for this property.
The natural boundary of the flood control channel, the
man-made boundaries of Warren Ave., Holt Ave. and 17th
St. create an ideal area for multi -family development
because it is naturally seperated by any single family
or commercial uses by these boundaries.
GES"ORAL PLAN DESIGNF IONS
ATTACHMENT C
ZC' SING DESIGNATIONS
ATTACHMENT C
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REC"ENDATION
FEBRUARY 6, 1989
Nt-W U V� 111LSJ
NO. 5
2-6-89
Inter - Cosa
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED HOLT AVENUE/NORTH OF WARREN ANNEXATION NO. 147
It is recommended that the City Council adopt:
1) Resolution No. 89-6 which petitions the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) to proceed with proposed Holt Avenue/North of Warren Annexation
No. 147; and
2) Resolution No. 89-7 which confirms the application of the Master Property
Tax Transfer Agreement to the proposed Holt Avenue/North of Warren
Annexation No. 147.
BACKGROUND _
The Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 authorizes the City
Council to make application to LAFCO for the annexation of territory after the
adoption of a .resolution. In the past it has been City Council policy to
initiate annexations when citizens of the area have filed a petition with the
City. In the case of proposed Annexation No. 147 a petition was filed by 100%
of the landowners in the area. When a petition is filed for an annexation with
100% consent of the property owners, LAFCO and the conducting authority may
conduct the annexation proceedings without notice and hearing and without an
election.
The purpose of this public hearing before the City Council is to determine
whether the City Council wishes to transmit the proposed annexation request to
LAFCO and to pay all filing fees. It also provides residents in the area with
an opportunity to express their concerns and views on the subject. This is not
a_protest hearing and the filing of a protest at this hearing has no validity as
to the status of the annexation proposal.
The proposed annexation area is bounded on the west by Holt Avenue, on the south
by Warren Avenue, on the east by the Orange County Flood Control Channel and on
the north by the northerly property line of 14332 Holt Avenue (see map). The
area consists of six (6) single-family homes which are zoned residential
single-family (RSF), and are part of the Nohth Tustin Specific Plan. According
to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, there are 14 registered voters with a
total population of 14.
ATTACHMENT D
r
City Council Report
Annexation No. 147
February G, 1989
• Page two
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed annexation and has provided a brief review of
the major issues related to the annexation and tax transfer agreement.
1. Annexation Proposal: It is our understanding that owner's affected by the
proposed annexation might have signed the annexation petition with an
expectation that the zoning of the subject property will be changed to a
higher density. The properties to the south of this proposal were annexed
into the City in 1981 and were pre -zoned from E-4 (RSF) to R-3
(Multi -family residential). However, the general plan designation for that
area was multi -family. The general plan designation for this proposed
annexation area is single-family and is surrounded by single-family with
the exception of the area on the south side of Warren.
The size of the proposed annexation area is 3.441 acres ( .0054 sq. mile)
which is contiguous to the City limits only on the southerly boundary at
Warren Avenue. The configuration of the annexation extends into the County
and is not substantially surrounded by the City of Tustin. As evidenced on
the attached map (Exhibit B), this proposed annexation further extends an
uneven City boundary.
LAFCO has the power to review annexation proposals and make certain
findings. They could disapprove or conditionally approve this annexation
proposal based on the finding that the area should be substantially
surrounded by the City to which the annexation is proposed or, they could
determine that since 1) the area is within our sphere of influence; 2 ) is
designated by our general plan; 3) residents would benefit from bein
annexed into our City, and 4) there is 100property owner that
the proposal should be approved. Depending upontheir
this government code section, they could require that the proposal should
include the entire island or surrounding area.
Should the City Council choose to file an application for proposed
Annexation No. 147, LAFCO then schedules the annexation on the next
available agenda as a consent calendar item. In the case of a proposal
with consent of all owners of land, LAFCO may approve and authorize the
conducting authority to conduct proceedings for the change of =organization
without notice of hearing or an election.
L---�����COMMunity Development Department
i
City Council Report
Annexation No. 147
February 6, 1989
Page three
2. Tax Transfers: Section 99(d) of the Revenue and Taxation
City and County to approve - the exchange of Code requires the
consideration of the application i cats on b 9 property tax revenue prior to
Resolution 89-7 which PP y (LAFCO). Attached to this report is
provides for the initiation of the Master Property
Tax Agreement for this proposed annexation area.
If the City Council choses to file an application for Annexation
No. 147,
then the Council should adopt Resolution No. 89-7 which provides
required tax confirmation statement. This resolution is then fo for the
ed
the Orange County Board of Supervisors for their adoption prior rto a LA to
p o a
determination on the proposed annexation. to
CONCLUSION
Attached to this report is Resolution No.
the proposed annexation and Resolution No. 6 which authorizes LAFCO to process
Property Tax Agreement with the County, of Orange. wh I f initiates the Master
adopted, staff will proceed with the processing of propo ehese d Anne solutions are
Holt Avenue/North of Warren. Annexation No. 147
r �
M ry A hambe ain
Associate Planner
MAC:CAS:ts
Attachment: Resolution No. 89-6
Resolution No. 89-7
Maps
Christine A. Shingleton
Director of Community Development
'*�" Co
m muniry Development DeparTmenr
�ICC.K '►HS-.
ExHIB17- ",B "
ro0 sn n •r✓ Lau
,,( '
SCALL IN Ferr
! V
�
II \
• �
1 J ;1
7\
\
I.
BIGELOW
'
PARK
1 `1v
'• ; ,
ov 8j*
lt[.3l /
}
I J""ML imam_.
; t_, .
J
Z
,._.
W\
.,
.do'as
i•. , ✓
,
IN WOOD
.Y.V/.9/� P.PI.gAR:O AY •.�; ��`'' / nt..e. '�1 �= t
GARY R. S/lGtL. � v
.'-
✓VNl JO. /J9t.�
V
' Nn . I� •
.-1
144
�'�•
Po/Nr of
DEG/NN/Al
,voR►Nwtir togNtq O- rHr
'NOL r • W - AN" H ANNLXAr,ON
IVI r/N; ALl✓ gt,Nc /Ht
J ✓I/rM wlJ r '0."';Of cor
r' 0I rNt ✓ANL,t RIII• ANO
NPw'A /RAcr /lq A/q L.A
Co. j •/Iv,
NOTE
rO`f IH,I/ALI 'OC f C.O.' AI
c/1t0 Ht A'ION, .ftflN r0
1Ht ORw 41 COVHrI /L 000
c ONrgOL O,JrAocr
1 ,I
` (N �3 •J✓•JJ t ` �� A Ve vzl
G E
COAWR /NNE N. 0'. /J,
Jf Cat.v/R Oe O C /CO A40"i !7•LOJ.
I� fY/rfl eOVNOARY iovd
,J� LEN '`oh'OL rL,us WARgLATIN 1
A.vHtAfA rION NO /Ji'
LEGEND
EX/S r/NG C/rY BOUNDARY
_ ANNE XAr/ON BOUNDAWY
AREA
v.v2 ACgA5
JAN !, /SO! A3 SHOWN vor �Jsee
ArvL/CAAL(
rH/J PAOr OJAL DOr3 mfer rNf A,.rg0✓AL Of '
/NL UNANC.f COVNrr Ofl,c t '
JOHN (ANA COV Y Jc/q✓erev '
C�L,cIHI! lAI/KAn,ON Ow/t ' _,- ��1 `��•� ,'.
DAre o:• rN,.j AP/A✓rA['_.!`."�/l2_�cJ___.L�,..=�
HOLT,- WARREN
ANNEXATION NO. 147
TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11, 2-6-89
Robert Le"endecker, Director of Public Wo.L_.s, responded that
locations were ,reoccurring at a rapid rate and staff was
concerned about the increasing cost to the City. The main
concern was, in order to repair the sidewalk, cutting the root
system of a tree on private property without permission or a Hold
Harmless agreement.
Councilman Prescott asked if root barriers were installed and
received -an affirmative answer from staff.
Mayor Kennedy directed staff to return with a modified policy for
Council consideration. Council concurred.
(No vote taken on the motion).
S. PROPOSED HOLT AVENUE/NORTH OF -WARREN ANNEXATION NO. 147
Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported
that this proposal had a 100% petition of all landowners in the
area that consisted of six single-family dwellings. She informed
Council that proponents of the annexation had some expectations
of possible future rezoning.
It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Kelly, to adopt the
following Resolution No. 89-6 which petitions the Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) to proceed with proposed Holt
Avenue/North of Warren Annexation No. 147:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-6 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE INHABITED
ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS HOLT AVENUE/NORTH OF WARREN
ANNEXATION NO. 147
Joseph Herzig read a letter from Valerie Via of 18222 Theodora,
Tustin. The letter questioned if an Environmental Impact Report
had been prepared.
Councilman Hoesterey said it appeared that the premise for the
annexation request was for rezoning and substantial increase in
the density of properties.
Christine Shingleton clarified that the item proposed for action
was only the annexation proposal and any future rezoning request
would require submittal at a future date.
Patricia Theeland, property owner in the proposed annexation
area, spoke in favor of Annexation No. 147.
Discussion followed between Council and Mrs. Theeland regarding
the question of rezoning.
Mayor Kennedy noted the only action being taken was the
annexation and Council was not inclined toward rezoning the
property.
Councilman Hoesterey was in favor of forwarding the annexation
proposal to LAFCO and wanted to clarify that there were no
expectations that the zoning of the subject area would be changed
to a higher density as a condition of the annexation.
It was moved by Prescott, seconded by Edgar, to adopt the
following Resolution Ito. 89-7 which confirms the application of
the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement to the proposed Holt
Avenue/North of Warren Annexation No. 147:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-7 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE' APPLICATION OF THE
MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED HOLT
AVENUE/NORTH OF WARREN ANNEXATION NO. 147 '
Both motions carried 5-0.
6. PARK NAMING GUIDELINES
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edgar, to approve the
following park naming guidelines:
ATTACHMENT D
- _
MI L-5 OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMIS I RECEIVED
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MAY 2 0990
APRIL 19, 1989
COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT
The regular meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County,
California, was'held on April 19, 1989 at 2:00 p.m. Members of the Commission
present were: Evelyn Hart, Chairman; Don R. Roth, Gaddi H. Vasquez, James 11.
Flora, and David Doran.
Alternate Member Present: John Kane]
In attendance: Benjamin de Mayo, Deputy County Counsel; James J. Colangelo,
Executive Officer; Robert J. Aldrich, Assistant Executive Officer; and the
Secretary.
IN RE: MINUTES OF THE MARCH 1, 1989 MEETING
On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the
Commission approved the minutes of March 1, 1989.
AYES: COWIISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, DAVID BORAN, DON R. ROTH,
JAMES H. FLORA AND EVELYN HART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE
IN RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 89-16
LAGUNA CANYON PROPERTIES ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
(Continued from meeting of April 5, 1989)
Commissioner Vasquez informed the Commission that he would be voting
no on this item to be consistent with his previous position on the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor condition of approval.
On motion of Commissioner Boran, duly seconded and carried, the
Commission approved the proposed findings for LAFCO Resolution NO -89-16 - Laguna
Canyon Properties Annexation to the City of Laguna Beach.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS DAVID BORAN, JAMES 11. FLORA AND EVELYN HART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS HONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS DON R. ROTH
�IN RE: PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN =t
HOLT AVENUE NORTH OF WARREN ANNEXATION NO. 147
(continued from the meeting of March 15, 1989)
item. Assistant Executive Officer Aldrich gave a brief presentation on this
Ms. Christine Shingleton, City of Tustin Community Development
Director, offered to answer any of the Commission's questions.
Ms. Patricia Theland spoke in support of the proposed annexation.
Mr. Jack Mallinckrodt, Foothill Communities Association, spoke in
opposition to the annexation and questioned the legality of the proposal.
Commissioner Roth asked County Counsel to respond to the legal
question raised.
Deputy County Counsel de Mayo and Executive Officer Colangelo
responded that the annexation does meet the minimum size criteria and it is a
legal annexation. ,
Commissioner Roth asked Mr. Mallinckrodt what his specific objection
to the annexation was.
Mr. Mallinckrodt stated that his primary objection related to higher
density development within the annexation area.
Commissioner Roth explained that LAFCO is not addressing a zoning
question with this proposal.
194
ATTACHMENT D
April 19, 1989
Commissioner Vasquez objected to allegations by Mr. Mallinckrodt that
LAFCO was being used as a surrogate land planning authority.
Mr. Roy Brown, North Tustin resident, stated that the Foothill
Communities Association does not represent the best interests of North Tustin
residents.
Mr. Otto Hahm, North Tustin resident, spoke in opposition to the
proposed annexation.
Commissioner Roth restated that LAFCO is not a zoning authority and
that if this annexation is approved, the proper forum to address density issues
would be at the City of Tustin Planning Commission or City Council.
Commissioner Flora commented that the petitions submitted in
opposition to the annexation address the density issue and not the annexation
itself.
Ms. Dessa Schroeder, North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council, spoke in
opposition to the proposed annexation.
Ms. Jeri Vermoni, North Tustin resident, spoke in opposition to the
proposed annexation, citing the potential for increased traffic impacts.
Commissioner Boran commented that the proposed annexation, in and of
itself, would have no impact on traffic.
Commissioner Flora asked Ms. Vermoni if she knew of specific plans to
redevelop the proposed annexation area to more intense uses.
Ms. Vermoni responded that there have been substantial rezonings in
the immediate area which resulted in higher density development.
Ms. Betty Karenas, North Tustin resident, spoke in opposition to the
proposed annexation.
Ms.' Shingleton summarized the City of Tustin's position and
recommended approval of the proposed annexation.
Commissioner Vasquez questioned Ms. Shingleton whether this
annexation, if approved, would provide a transition to higher density
development.
Ms. Shingleton responded that no committment has been made to the
property owners and, in fact, the City Council has cautioned the property owners
about any expectations of rezoning.
Ms. Vermoni provided the Commission with additional testimony in
opposition to the proposed annexation.
Mr. Mallinckrodt reitterated concerns about the legality of the
annexation proposal.
Executive Officer Colangelo responded that the annexation territory
exceeds the minimum size criteria for contiguous annexations without including
the flood control channel.
Commissioner Vasquez related that most of the comments have addressed
issues outside of the purview of LAFCO.
On motion of Commissioner Vasquez, duly seconded and carried, the
Commission approved proposed Annexation No. 147 to the City of Tustin.
AYES: COWiISSIONERS GADDI H. VASQUEZ, JAMES H. FLORA, DON R. ROTH,
DAVID BORAN AND EVELYN HART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 89-17 (See File)
195
RESPONSE LETTERS
ATTACHMENT E
Kirk Hahn
14431 Holt Ave.
Santa Ana, Calif.
92705
June 26, 1990
,DUAN 2 '
COMMUNITY DEI'�F11:':''..T
Dear Planning Commission,
I would like to submit a rebuttal to "Justification for Zone
Change #89-03, General Plan Amendment #90-1" submitted on April 9,
1990 by Dennis Paquette of Diversified Real Property Management.
This document contains numerous misrepresentations and false
statements. I will present the facts pertaining to each statement
made by the applicant and present the data to substantiate my
conclusions.
page 1, paragraph 2
"The tremendous growth of these outlying communities ("Norco,
Riverside, Moreno Valley, Fontana") have put a heavy burden on
existing transportation corridors causing an urgent need to add
new corridors and expand existing freeways."
The growth of the Inland Empire has been caused by people
wanting to live in single family residences on decent -sized lots.
- The people are not migrating to these areas so they can live in
small townhouses on small lots with high density living conditions.
page 2, paragraph 1
"The homes to the North and to the East of the subject property
are of significantly lower density to that of the subject site ...
The houses to the north and east are at a higher density
(more dwellings per acre) than the subject area. These houses
were built with a county zoning that is more restrictive than the
present zoning by the City of Tustin, and demonstrates that the
subject area can be economically used for housing with the present
zoning. Therefore, the zoning does not need to be changed to
accomplish the stated goals of increasing housing on this parcel.
page 2, paragraph 1
"...and it should be mentioned that the homes to the East are
separated from the subject site by a natural 55 foot wide flood
control channel."
The flood control channel is "man-made" and is not "natural".
The distance between the subject site and the houses to the East
is relatively small when it is consider that the proposed townhouses
are two-story with second floor windows which give easy view into
the backyards and bedrooms of the houses to the east.
page 2, paragraph 2
"It i,� the applicants belief that the highest and best use of
the property would be that of the requested development and zoning
for the for following reasons: ..."
r
"i). Property benefit - ... The changing neighborhood, size
of the individual parcels and conditions of the deteriorating
residences indicate that it might be time to redevelop the
property to a more suitable use"
"changing neighborhood.. "
The neighborhood is not changing from that of a well maintained
neighborhood with homeowners conscientious of their property upkeep.
The only significant change that has; occurred in the neighborhood
has been the gradual transition of old-time original homeowners of
the houses to new young families with children buying the houses and
remodeling them or making necessary improvements to the land and
property.
"...size of the individual parcels.."
The lot depth of the parcels are not significantly different
than the other lots surrounding the subject site. Plus, the lot
depth decreases progressively along Holt Ave. The lots on the
subject site are even smaller than other lots in the neighborhood
which have had houses remodeled (14331 Holt) or have had owners
who have maintained the normal maintenance (14411 Holt).
"...and conditions of the deteriorating residences..."
The residences in this neighborhood are not deteriorating
(see attached photographs of houses on the subject site, on the
west -side of Holt (across the street from subject site), and in
the immediate neighborhood (bordering subject site)). These
photographs clearly show that the houses in the neighborhood are
well maintained and that homeowners are spending large amounts of
money (>$100,000) to remodel and improve their homes.
page 2, paragraph 4 ,& page 3, paragraph 1
"2) Neighborhood benefit - "
"The proposed zoning and development would serve to continue
the rejuvenation of the neighborhood by private enterprises
instead of a redevelopment agency of the local government."
The zone change and development would serve to inhibit the
continuation of money and effort into the maintenance of the
houses along Holt Ave and the surrounding streets which border the
subject site. A homeowner will only put money into his house when
he feels that those improvements will either improve his living
conditions or increase the value of his home. If a developer only
wants to buy the house so it can be torn down, any improvements
made to the house will not be compensated by the developer.
page 3, paragraph 1
"This would be accomplished by replacing the.."
Just because a house is old does not mean it is of lower
quality or value to a new townhouse or multiple family dwelling.
A 70 year-old house, across the street from the subject site and
on a larger lot, has been well maintained.
"..functionally obsolete detached homes.."
The existence of original owners still living in these houses
and the fact that young families are moving into houses even older
than those on the subject site proves that the houses on the
subject site are not "functionally obsolete".
"..with a high quality.."
The townhouses will be of lower quality of construction and
have a lower quality of life than the houses that are presently on
the subject site. The present houses were constructed in the
1950's with lath and plaster, and high standards of building
codes. The proposed townhouses would be constructed of dry wall,
reduced building standards than those of the 1950's and the
dwellings would have common walls between neighboring units. The
developer even states that he can not meet the standards of the
existing townhouses south of Warren, let alone meet the present
regulations which are in effect.
The developer states in his letter to Ms. Pashalides (April
41 1990, received by Community Development on April 9, 1990) that
he cannot include a hammerhead for turn -around of fire equipment
or trash pick-up. The entrance to the site will be 24 feet, while
the development south of Warren has 27 and 41 feet entrances, and
the private drive would be 24 feet, while the city code requires a
25 foot private drive. The development will not have the mandated
extra parking spaces for visitors, nor landscaped front yards.
"..architecturally unique,..."
This development will be far from unique with 14 dwellings of
an identical color, design, lot lay-oL4t, and construction. However,
the present single family residences which were built with different
designs, configuration, landscaping and exterior paint color, are
unique.
"..aesthetically pleasing project.."
As the person who will have to look at this development
everyday, I can tell you without any hesitation or doubt, this
development will be aesthetically unpleasing (high fences, two-
story structures which block my view of Saddleback Mountain) and
will quickly become an annoyance due to decay from poor construc-
tion and maintenance. A person only has to look at the develop-
ment south of Warren to see what will happen to this development.
"..which could only enhance the neighborhood."
This development will not enhance this neighborhood. It will
only serve as a focal point for a "self-perpetuating" decline of
the surrounding neighborhood.
page 3, paragraph 2
"3) City/Municipality benefits - The benefits to the City of
Tustin and the County of Orange are as follows:"
"A) Provides much needed, more affordable housing within the
City and County,.."
This type of development is not needed. At the present time,
there are 3 townhouses for sale in the development south of Warren
and these units have been on the market for more than 60 days. If
there was a high demand in this area, those units would have sold
quickly. Additionally, there are many houses, condominiums, and
townhouses in the expected price range of the proposed development
available in the surrounding neighborhood, City of Tustin and
County of Orange. When the townhouses were built south of Warren,
they sold very slowly and many remained unsold for years.
The proposed development would not provide more affordable
housing than is presently available in the neighborhood and
immediate area of Tustin. The townhouses south of Warren are
selling for around $225,000 (plus $90/month association fee).
There is a house on a nice -sized lot, 2 blocks north of Warren on
Holt which is selling for $2501000. There are numerous single
family residence houses in the surrounding neighborhoods selling
for similar prices. The price of the proposed townhouses would
not be significantly lower than these prices due to construction
costs and costs associated with acquiring the property and
preparing it for construction.
"..mitigating some of the commuter traffic which might
normally occur."
This development will only exacerbate commuter traffic
problems by removing from the market single family residences
which are highly prized by people, who move to distant cities so
they can buy and live in this type of house.
"B) The proposed project would generate development fees for
the City of Tustin,
"The proposed project ... would create the potential of 35
new homes (instead of the existing 5) for the entire site and 14
(instead of the existing 2) for the proposed development site."
This statement misrepresents the facts in this matter. The 3
homeowners on parcels 401-12.2- 121 137 14, have no intention of
selling their property and have expressed on numerous occasions
that they will remain living in their homes for the rest of their
lives (10 to 20 years, or even longer since second generation
members are presently living with their elderly'parents).
Therefore, the number of dwellings on those lots will not change.
Mr. & Mrs. Thelan, which are the only people who are actually
promoting this zone change, have indicated they wish to leave the
community. The current zoning will allow 6 dwellings to the acre
(which is more than the zoning of the property before it was
annexed to Tustin). Therefore, the property has in reality been
re -zoned to the current status. The true comparison of the
property is whether the current zoning for 6 dwellings should be
increased to 14. This slight increase in the number of dwellings
does not justify the harmful effects it will cause on the
surrounding neighborhood and property values.
"The resultant property taxes assessed should well be in
excess of thirty times the current property tax assessments."
This statement also misrepresents the facts in this matter.
The true comparison is not between the current tax assessment
(original owners from the 1950's with Proposition 13 limitations)
but between the tax assessment of the property if it had 6
dwellings (the current zoning). Plus, considering the decreased
property values and reduced selling prices (i.e. lower assessed
taxes than if the house resided in a flourishing community) for
the houses in the neighborhood. Any small gain in taxes on the
subject site would clearly be off -set by the reduced assessed
taxes on the surrounding properties.
page 3, paragraph 3
"C) Property Owner benefits
"The owners of 14448 (Mr. and Mrs. Ira Thelan) have resided
there since 1950. Over the years, part of their property has been
taken for the widening of both Holt Ave. and Warren Ave. In fact,
part of their home is actually encroaching into the Warren Ave.
right-of-way. "
No property of the Thelans was ever taken to widen Holt Ave.
or Warren Ave. The original trust deed for their property clearly
showed at the time of the purchase of the house that Holt Ave.
would be 80 feet wide and Warren Ave. 66 feet wide. The original
trust deed stated that the county owned the easement for the
right-of-way of these roads. Therefore, the Thelans can not have
something taken away that was never theirs in the first place.
The location of their house relative to the final edges of
Holt Ave. and Warren Ave. was known by the Thelans at the time of
the purchase of the house. Additionally, after the streets were
widened, the Thelans never took advantage of the several remedies
available to them. They owned two lots and could have moved the
present house away from the edge of the road or built a new house
on one of the lots. They could have sold one of the lots to pay
for any of the expenses. Over the years when neighbors talked to
them about their house, the Thelans always said they were happy
with their home and did not want to take advantage of the options
available to them. The decision to live in a house located close
to the road's edge was solely their choice.
page 4, paragraph 1
"Because of their advancing age, the deterioration of their
property and personal illness, Mr. and Mrs. Thelan are now in a
position where they must find more suitable housing."
Citing the deterioration of the Thelans' house as a justifi-
cation for the re -zoning is very upsetting. The deterioration of
their house was a conscious decision on their part and was not
caused by any outside factor. They had decided many years ago to
eventually sell their property for condominiums, so there was no
need for them to maintain their property.
It is unethical for a homeowner to be rewarded for neglecting
their property while the surrounding neighbors, who have spent
money to maintain and improve their property, are penalized by
lower property values due the presence of multiple family dwelling
on the subject site.
"The sale of both these properties will allow both owners to
proceed with their lives and hopefully have an easier, more
fulfilling life."
Both owners are able to sell their property with the current
zoning. There are livable houses on the properties and there are
people who would be willing to purchase them and invest the
necessary money to improve them. Even if the property was to be
developed, the current zoning would permit 6 dwellings on the
subject site. It is even foreseeable that a person would buy the
property in the present state and build a large house on the site.
An important fact to note is that these houses have never
been offered for sale. The present owners do not know whether
they could get more money or equivalent money from private buyers.
It is only assumed that a developer will pay more money than a
private person, however this is not necessarily true. This
property has assets which could be very important to a person
wanting to live in a nice neighborhood. Also, the developer is a
businessman, so he will not pay more money than he has to for the
property and the cost of the property must be passed along to the
final buyers. Therefore the developer, due to economic factors,
will only pay the price a private buyer would offer, or less than
a private buyer if he is a good negotiator. Since the property
has never been offered for sale, it is impossible to determine
whether this development produces the most money for the present
owners in the final analysis.
Another factor that must be considered is that until one year
ago, this parcel was in the County and had had the same zoning
(E-4) for the last JJ years. The Thelans and Lewis' were never
given the expectation that a development of this type would ever
be permitted on their property since the zoning'regulations did
not allow the requested dwelling density. It was only due to the
Thelans maneuvers and misrepresentations during -the annexation
process, that this parcel can be rezoned to the requested dwelling
density. Therefore, denying the zone change does not rescind any
implied or expressed possible future use of the Thelans' property
for multiple family dwellings.
page 4, paragraph 2 -
"The
"The owners of the balance of the propriety involved in the
zone chance and general plan amendment will benefit in knowing
that their- property has a specific development plan formulated
with their properties specific needs in mind."
Although the other owners of the lots on the subject site
have signed for the zone change, they have no intention of moving
or selling their property to a developer. They all have their own
reasons for going along with the petition which are not necessarily
for monetary gain on their part.
To analyze the potential benefit or harm to the value of their
houses, a person only has to answer a simple question. Does the
value of a well-maintained single family residence increase by
having two-story, multiple family dwellings next door or does the
value increase by having another well-maintained single family
residence next door?
If a person was to conclude that multiple family dwellings
increase the value of surrounding single family residence, then
that same person would have to believe that the neighbors who are
so strongly opposed to their construction are ignorant of
economics. I feel the actual homeowners of the surrounding
properties are the best judges of the economic harm to their
investments and not the developer who has no intention of living
in the neighborhood.
Additionally, if the above statement by the developer was
true, then a person would have to believe he is ignorant of
economics. If the construction of the new development was to
actually increase the value of the houses in the path of future
construction, then he would have to pay more money for the lots.
However, if the development was to cause a decrease in the value
of the houses or preclude the desirability of the houses for sale
to private buyers, then he would be able to purchase the lots in
the path for less money. Therefore, if it was actually true that
the value would increase, then the developer would purchase these
lots before the value went up.
page 4, paragraph 3
"Finally, since Holt Ave. has evolved into a major North/
South commuter street, detached single family development along
the street contribute to traffic hazards with cars pulling into
and out of driveways."
This statement is not based on any data or antidotal
information. The opposite is actually true. Most homes along
Holt Ave. north of Warren have circle driveways and the houses
have 50 feet set -backs which gives a clear view for the cars
entering or exiting the houses.
The probability of a traffic accident in a given location is
determined by 3 factors: number of cars entering or exiting at that
location, the presence of objects to obscure the driver's view and
the speed of the cars. The number and location of accidents near
the subject area correspond to these factors. There has never been
an accident along Holt Ave. which has involved a car entering or
exiting a driveway. All the accidents have occurred at the
intersection of Holt and Warren, usually caused by a car pulling
out in front of an oncoming car or entering Warren at an excessive
speed and spinning out or hitting another car.
The traffic on Holt Ave. is very bad and steps should be taken
to reduce the flow of cars on this street, rather than increasing
the number of cars by adding multiple family dwellings.
"Developing a specific plan for the subject property with a
private street would alleviate this hazard as traffic would be
diverted to Warren Ave. via the private street."
Building a multiple family development on the subject site
would compound an already dangerous situation. As mentioned
above, all the accidents along this section of Holt have occurred
at the in+ersection with Warren. Locating a driveway only a few
feet down Warren would produce a very dangerous traffic hazard.
It was a car accident at the precise location for the proposed
entrance which Pat Thelan cited as the reason for her wanting to
be annexed to Tustin. Imagine how many accidents would occur at
this location if there were cars entering and existing all the
time rather than the present driveway for a single house.
Cars traveling down Holt are usually moving fast, 40 mph or
more. It is very common for cars traveling south to speed up and
make a quick left turn to beat the lines of cars coming towards
them. Cars traveling north also have a tendency to make a right
turn onto Warren at a high velocity. At the present time, walls,
trees, telephone poles and street signs obscure the driver's view
down Warren and a two-story development on the north side of
Warren would only further decrease the driver's view of cars
traveling south.
It is not uncommon for several cars to be lined up on Warren
awaiting a chance to turn onto Holt. These cars would block the
proposed entrance to the development, and any cars wanting to enter
would have to sit on Warren just around the corner and out of sight
of the cars turning onto Warren from Holt. This situation is an
accident waiting to happen.
The development would have 14 dwellings, which means that there
would be at least 56 cars entering or exiting the entrance on Warren
every day. This situation represents a major traffic hazard and
would be the principal cause of any resulting accidents.
"Warren Ave. would also be improved which would also alleviate
some traffic hazards which now exist."
The City of Tustin only has 200 hundred feet of Warren and
any improvements would be minimal. The only improvement which
would have a significant effect would be to increase drivers' view
by removing the wall surrounding the development on the south side
of Warren and to have a large set back on both Holt and Warren for
any construction on the subject site.
page 5, paragraph 2
"Should the City of Tustin eventually annex the balance of
the East side of Holt Ave. up to 17th St., it would seem perfectly
logical and feasible to permit a similar type of zoning and
development for this property."
It would be illogical and unfeasible to construct multiple
family dwellings along the east side of Holt Ave. north of Warren.
The lot depth of houses on Holt begins to decrease substantially
north of Warren. The lot depth decreases all the way to 17th St.
with the flood control channel meeting Holt. The largest lot
depth is at Warren and the developer of this project has stated in
his letter to rls. Pashalides that he is unable to include all the
required features (street width, set backs, landscaping, guest
parking, fire truck access, etc.) even with this lot size. Also,
the houses along Holt Ave. up to 17th St. are well-maintained and
the homeowners have expressed they do not want this type of
development for their lots.
The logical decision would be to halt the migration of
multiple family dwelling at Warren Ave., and preserve the healthy
neighborhood of single family residences and, in the process,
encourage the homeowners to be long-time residents of the area.
"The natural boundary of the flood control channel, the
man-made boundaries of Warren Ave., Holt Ave., and 17th St. create
an ideal area for multi -family development because it is naturally
separated by any single family or commercial uses by these
boundaries."
These boundaries are insignificant to the homeowners surround-
ing this conceived strip development. The maximum distance would
be 80 feet (the width of Holt Ave.) and this is in reality no
boundary since this is our view from the front of the house. When
it is noted that the eventual structures would be multi -storied,
there is no true separation.
This strip of land is far from ideal for multiple family
dwelling but it is ideal for single houses with nice front and
back yards.
I appreciate Your consideration of the pertinent facts which
concern the proposed zone change. I will be looking forward to
meeting you at the hearing and expressing my views in person.
S erely,
irk H -h , Ph. D
c - '!.•'r.`,; R'.�i'�'S'•y'y�vcwp�++I!uMA7M��.'t+i{.'/,:ii`7
�� _ fr:r L � �ja 1T�'stFG(<}N i�s►k:�"6idr.'Y,(Pyr FY�1�-•'��d r�
f� •'- ,�,c=jt:F tib, J�t-vxf' 11 rf� f **�; f'.l,. �a
F ,.. � � J. •/.�'Ir4x .,q .7��•. -plc •.5:.� `� '� f .'t -"i _
lmins.c.ea.,•:�::•..._.a....... ..._.. r.:.. •., .. .,.. .s.>:t. •:J r. :'__mom a..:_-^-•e.r.:.n:s.uaw. t9ava
J`"'. i7�..L:iGi, ?..:.1sx.,:.n..�.SI;� <'t,c;=Gi%1.'`I'/ii.�.'GL•�.ue�.x�i�tOaJ.�l+�x�,i�sP
s
.. _ :yr r. t .,r.7'�rw�Lby�ll�Myb� ,iR'i•6�+K.tw41�{�t�hiiyytVta75 �,f'i
.+. t rr+. r Y.,}. •*:.0 { �tiy."A • 1a .c.r.x � i <S �v
• �
.. - .. '._ .', . � r a r yrv�:t` Irtxti.,. 1sG1' 4� ��4 f:SAty'%•i•�= �...j •�
N . .. ,.� .. '. '1,. l'. J.�^I a t/Gn-0YM•l+c 6> �.� i•F c.fi
v'. ..... .. _ ,.._.. J.....W ... t?.. �—...;=...15..rtxLc ,u:�a�tY..i.►"�1201
joY��'�yJf�
�,y ��Z j .. .. r''`.� I � � f i '1 r ; v c r` 1..:� �±I ♦' { rr-i'lj���yy�,c y�,�E=.+f�y�y��.��Lia,SC^�YYtIL+.��r.� ,. 'tom• -.A_
i► �cT,:�.•i x.4•., - �e r�.A... 4.:ci ... Mr�S.... .. •w.t'l•..ti:, i. t_I c., �r•�"+ i..M1 .•r. W 71P!i-fiii�l'li}
J
m
Fi,cYO�S
ive,
y /i Ci J✓ i� j bc�c(-Pc�
J U
y�,.i t�.M.f'� ,-. it :.v�'., ^rw, YM y..•' .,
Y4,
lvvS GtG� G� tJFr�� ._IU j 0�
� J
Otto Hahn INC V
`%.yr:v%'
14431 Holt Ave.
Santa Ana, Calif. J U N 2. 7 19190
92705
COhtMUN1Tti'
June 26, 1990
Dear Planning Commission,
I would like to state my strong objections to the proposed
change in zoning of parcels 401-122- 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. A
zone change from single family residences will have severe
economic ramifications and cause extreme negative impacts on the
surrounding community. Some of the eventual effects of a change
in zoning to allow multiple family residences are:
INCREASED TRAFFIC
The traffic on Holt Avenue at the present time is very heavy
and with most cars exceeding the speed limit. The construction of
multiple family dwelling on this parcel of land will cause a severe
increase in the traffic on Holt and Warren. If the entrance is
placed on Warren, the entrance would be only a few feet from the
intersection of Holt and Warren. Warren is a two-lane side -street
which is inadequate for increased traffic. Also this location for
the entrance would precipitate car accidents at the intersection of
Holt and Warren. The only accidents which have occurred along this
section of Holt have been located at Warren or a few feet down
Warren as the cars speed around the corner. Ironically, it was
just such an accident which Pat Thelan cited as her reason for
better "police protection" with an annexation.
INCREASED NOISE
The noise level on Holt Avenue from the present traffic load
is very high. The present configuration (large set -backs, and
open space with lawns and trees) of the homes on the lots along
Holt Avenue in this section allows the dissipation and absorption
of the traffic noise. Even with this configuration, the noise
level inside the houses is still high. The presence of multiple
family dwellings will cause the noise level to increase along Holt
Ave. The increased traffic from the cars of the inhabitants of
the dwellings will cause a severe increase in the ambient noise
level. Also, economic necessity (maximizing number of dwelling
while minimizing surface area), will require the multiple family
dwellings to be 2 -story and built close to the road, and
surrounded by a high fence to shield them from the traffic noise
on Holt Ave. The combination of 2 -story buildings constructed
close together with high fences will cause the traffic noise to be
concentrated and reflected back (echo effect) to the houses across
the street on the west side of Holt Avenue.
INCREASED STREET CONGESTION
Cars parked on Holt Avenue will exacerbate the traffic
problems, magnifying traffic noise, and would be a critical factor
for increased crime (stolen car radios, vandalism, etc.).
DECREASED PROPERTY VALUES OF HOMES SURROUNDING ZONE CHANGE
The character of the community along Holt Avenue north of
Warren is single -story, single family residences with set -backs,
and the lots face Holt Avenue. The present combination of
homeowners shows the healthy evolution of a neighborhood with a
blend of long-time residents (38 years), and new families with
young children and second -generation owners who are remodeling and
landscaping the homes. The homes are well maintained with nice
lawns and show the loving care of concerned owners.
The presence of multiple family units across the street will
cause the value of the surrounding property to decrease severely.
Future purchasers of houses near the parcel would not have any
confidence that the migration of multiple family dwelling would
not continue by the same method that has occurred in this case
(annexation to Tustin, zone change from single family to multiple
family, and construction of more units). The subsequent increase
in traffic and noise will decrease the "quality of life" and any
purchaser of a house would have to take that into account. Even
the inclusion of this intention in the application for zone change
for this parcel will have a chilling effect on future purchasers
of houses in the area.
The specter of multiple units next door or across the street
will cause many owners to conclude that the only route is to sell
out to a developer and leave the area. This decision will cause
the homeowner to stop making improvements and neglect the neces-
sary upkeep on the houses since this will not be compensated by
the developer. A "healthy" neighborhood with caring homeowners is
a community asset which is reflected in the value of the houses.
The houses on the west side of Holt Avenue are east -facing
and look directly at the parcel to be re -zoned. At the present
time, the view from the living rooms, kitchens, and dining rooms
is of the scenic Saddleback Mountain. The construction of 2 -story
dwellings, closely packed together will block our view of
Saddleback Mountain, and replace it with the view of the backside
of the building and a fence facing Holt Avenue.
DEGRADATION IN CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD
The present neighborhood contains homes with front lawns that
allow young children to play close to home in safety. The land-
scaping is pleasant and furnishes shade and a cooling effect to
the weather. The neighbors are friendly and still can talk over
the fences between the houses. This is a community that has those
"American" qualities which we have always embraced and strived to
obtain.
Multiple family dwellings by their nature are usually step-
ping stones for the people to save money until they can purchase a
single family residence with all those qualities which this
community now has but will lose by their construction. It is
illogical to destroy a community which has the qualities for which
the purchasers of the multiple family dwellings are striving to
work toward. Do not destroy the very thing for which everybody is
seeking.
INAPPROPRIATE
The siting of multiple family dwellings on this parcel of
land is not compatible with the surrounding homes and neighbor-
hood. The developer asserts the presence of condominiums south of
Warren is a precedent for the continuation of condominiums along
the east side of Holt Avenue. This -'comparison is incorrect since
the parcels of land on Holt Avenue north of Warren are qualit-
atively and quantitatively different than the parcels south of
Warren. The lot depths of the parcels on the east side of Holt
are significantly larger south of Warren than north, and the lot
depth continues to decrease all the way to 17th street. Also, the
houses on the west side of Holt, south of Warren, are north/south
facing with their front yards on the side streets; while the
houses north of Warren are east facing with their front yards on
Holt Avenue.
The neighborhood in which this multiple family dwelling is
proposed to be located is a long-time single family community
which has continual infusion of new homeowners who invest in their
homes with improvements. Multiple family dwellings on this parcel
would severely damage the character of the neighborhood, and would
lead to the inevitable decline and deterioration of the quality of
life and preclude the necessary upkeep for the houses.
UNNECESSARY
There is no need for additional multiple family dwellings in
this area or community. At the present time, there are 3 units in
the condominiums south of Warren listed for sale. These units
have been on the market for more than 60 days, and it is unknown
how long they will remain on the market or whether they will even
sell. There are numerous condominiums for sale in the Tustin area
and in the greater surrounding cities. The multiple real estate
listing on June 25, 1990, showed that there were 168 condominiums/
townhouses and 19 houses for sale in the immediate Tustin area
(#21) which are in the price range of $150,000 to $250,000 (the
estimated price of the proposed townhouses). Also, the number of
condominiums/townhouses and houses for sale in the surrounding
cities was very large.
This zone change would actually remove from the housing
market those dwelling which are most prized and replace them with
dwellings of lesser appeal and quality of construction.
DE FACTO "SPOT" ZONE CHANGE
This zone change is in reality only on parcels (401-122- 15,
16, 17) owned by Mr. & Mrs. Thelan and Mrs. Lewis. The owners of
the other lots (401-122- 12, 13, 14) have told several people
personally they have no intention of selling their property and
want to remain living in their homes for the rest of their lives
(approximately 10-20 years). They have only gore along with the
zone change petition since they perceived that it might be useful
sometime in the future. Therefore, this zone change is a de facto
"spot" zone change which is prohibited by the City of Tustin.
MISREPRESENTATION OF ANNEXATION PETITION
The petition for the annexation to Tustin was falsified by
Pat Thelan to misrepresent her intentions to seek a zone change
and have condominiums built on her property. On the petition, she
marked "NO" where it asked about the potential of a zone change.
The papers that have been submitted for the petition of a zone
change clearly show that Pat Thelan was in communication with a
developer before the annexation to Tustin. As they say in the
law, "The thing speaks for itself". This petition for a zone
change proves that the petition for annexation was falsified.
PRECEDENT FOR DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONING
The condominium units south of Warren show a clear precedent
for the type of deleterious effects which will occur from the
construction of multiple family dwellings on this parcel. The
back walls are covered with spray -painted graffiti, the fences
facing Holt are not maintained and are of low quality, the
dwellings are of low construction quality and show signs of decay,
there is a high turn over of owners, cars and boats are parked on
Holt Ave. due to inadequate parking for the inhabitants and
visitors, aesthetically unpleasant design of buildings, reduced
privacy from second -story windows, increased traffic and
congestion, and the dwellings effectively enclosed behind walls
and separated from the neighborhoods on Holt Avenue.
I strongly urge you to deny the zone change due to the
adverse effects it will cause to the surrounding neighborhood and
property values of the houses.
Sincerely,
V�
Otto Hahn
__� l CH
O �.JV l II\% ��'1�
,qrp-,�
{c�uS
_�� �� flu u�) -s Su S -r 5C)(J--n+ a -F Qv A-P-R--Eti
OF U VSE �E- P
Tustin Planning Commisson 18191 Bigelow Park
300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680
Tustin, CA 92680 June 29,1990
Dear Commissoner:
J y 2 3 1990
CONIMI LAITY DIEVLE;f1NMENT
We request that you do not approve zone change 90-01
for the following reasons. With the presence of the e):isting
multi family units we have noticed an increase of through
traffic on our street. Rather than proceed through the
traffic lights on 17 t -h street or Fourth street, condo
dwellers living on Holt, use Bigelow as a through street from
Prospect to holt. Our street is residential and has numerous
children on bicycles, and is also used as a route to CT
Intermediate School. The proposed zone change would only
increase the through traffic in the area.
Holt is supposed to be a main artery from 17th to the
shopping centers on Newport,but is now beginning to be
clogged with street- parking from the new multi family units.
The addition of town houses will only increase this
congestion, and will locate additional children on a very
busy street. Holt becomes a major exit artery at evening
rush hour, and one neighborhood child has been in a brain
damaged state since encountering a car two years ago.
The homes purchased adjacent to Holt were desirable
because they were located on residential streets and had a main
exit on Holt to 17th and Fourth. Putting town houses on
Holt decreases our value as a residential neighborhood,
increases congestion on Holt, and increases through traffic
on our residential street.
Sincerely,
1 �
�ames B. and Nora H. Sink
�►•i,`a `4E lid
ENGINE'E'RING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
303 WEST COMMONWEALTH AVENUE - FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92632
TO: The Tustin Planning Commission
FROM: Brian G. Smiley, resident of 14271 Clarissa Lane
SUBJECT: Proposed Zone Change 90-01
Dear Commissioners:
COA1�°�ii~�ITyCE,.'i.cGt'i:1EidT
I am writing to urge you to deny the proposed zone change for the Holt corridor.
I have lived here for 20 years and I have seen the 'before and after' effects
of the townhomes already constructed on ;:colt Street. As you know, these higher
density projects increase the noise, pollution, and traffic levels, while
simultaneously decreasing the owner/occupancy rate in the area. Although the
area remains a fine middle class neighborhood, townhomes have caused disparaging
effects.
One example of these disparaging effects is that riding bicycles and jogging
along Holt has become more hazardous with the increased congestion. This point
is especially important because many children ride their bicycles along Holt
Street in order to attend Columbus Tustin Junior High School.
Further increases in the allowable densities on Holt Street will only exacerbate
current problems. Please act to maintain the social fabric of the area by
preserving the R-1 zoning along Holt Street.
Respectfully,
Brian Smiley
BGS:mlb
Engineering (714) 738-6845 Community Develol)aient (714) 738-6877 Water Engincering (714) ?3,8-6886
Tustin Planning Commisson /9/7 / Bigelow Park
300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680
Tustin, CA 92680 June 29,1990
Dear Commissoner:
JUN 2 9 1900
CO'NIt1IVII'Y;tF'ti cUf'mfi tdT
We request that you do not approve zone change 90-01
for the following reasons. With the presence of the existing
multi family units we have noticed an increase of through
traffic on our street. Pather than proceed through the
traffic lights on 17 th street or Fourth street, condo
dwellers living on Holt, use Bigelow as a through street from
Prospect to Holt. Our street- is residential and has numerous
children on bicycles, and is also used as a route to CT
Intermediate School. The proposed zone change would only
increase the through traffic in the area.
Holt is supposed to be a main artery from 17th to the
shopping centers on Newport,but is now beginning to be
clogged with street parking from the new multi family units.
The addition of town houses will only increase this
congestion, and will locate additional children on a very
busy street. Holt becomes a major exit artery at evening
rush hour, and one neighborhood child has been in a brain
damaged state since encountering a car two years ago.
The homes purchased adjacent to Holt were desirable
because they were located on residential streets and had a main
exit on Holt to 17th and Fourth. Putting town houses on
Holt decreases our value as a residential neighborhood,
increases congestion on Holt, and increases through traffic
on our residential street.
Sincerely,
J
{
14.271 Clarissa Lane
janta Ana, California 92705
June 28, 1990
Tustin Plann.icno- Comm.j_ssion
C,j
300 Centennial T
Tustin, Calif(.)icnia j2680
P.,e: Zone Uhatige )O-Oi
Gentleit.,en:
ir
J_ l'i-ve on u c-aj_,:.,sa liano, on. the opposite side
of -the storui channel thi;At runs beriind the houses on.
Holt "" tr c e t.
.1. (and [fly faiiiily Vuave; lived Here for 20 years,
during WIL-1-Cil. j)(_'_L'1Od. WOE 1-1("IVO, curry to observe the
gradual d.ec__L-*!_i.ie of Tustin. We've witnessed. -the greed
of develope.i.�,s wito IJ-.ve el,"-ewtic-r-e, of city fathers whose
own nej.[,,--ci*i)(--;:c-'L,io(-,,(i..,-j (_ 1.o t-iot. het trasl-ied., of homeowners who
respond to ti)e crowding,' arid. -traffic and encroachment of
- 1. areas as some on Holt Street
bus i n e LS, 0 1.3 lrlto res0 ident-1-01 kj'
have, by rusti-Lii;, to � e t in on tVie pro_-[-iAs, selling out
U
and tak-i.-no- l-ive,:elsew'tjore. -1, suppose it's
because these itot.ives are so universal that planning
commis.-io-iis an.d. ai.,e a necessity and are the only
recourse of people woo want to live in orderly, pleasant,
livable noi,;,iib(_)ri.-Loc)d,,3 decade after decade.
C_j
"D _-! �
of molt L street with
_� u y, 11-tovi.ri..iiottjc-.11--warj--ens of sei-Pi -permanent
dwe-1lerS, witc) sce ttie -trca as, a temporary convenience froin
which they will flee V.-icn they cLu-i, people WrLo never
become part of tine cuiimiunity, whio contribute nothing but
wo,-e auto emis,:,ion,(J, noise, L�arba))-e, traffic, poliutlon.
ujiddie class resident-ial
neighboi---i-iowls on but'i of holt;street.)'treet. -ihy should.
th.-J"s suburbari coitititun'l-ty be -ji.LcKed. apart by the greed of
a e W., rj.iiy i S OV t'i-ji rv- tt-tat 11-ps wi thin reach of
Tusitin tuir-ned to ,,arbaL)e? Those of us wiio
mad.c a j_nve..tmcn.t in, this community have a
to expect ,_3).om;_, protectio-n fi:-om pl(onning professionals.
(��A 12.3 tluir
L. Smiley for the
rfamily
Smiley family
e o r
Uc
caF,t�ltsj�r::`r GCti-t Ec»t4^ff
Tustin Planning Commisson r,GN1N9',I%liY IL EVIIUPhIL.
'Vd471 Bigelow Park
300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680
Tustin, CA 92680 June 29,1990
Dear Commissoner:
We request that you do not approve zone change 90-01
for the following reasons. With the presence of the existing
multi family units we have noticed an increase of through
traffic on our street. Rather than proceed through the
traffic lights on 17 th street or Fourth street, condo
dwellers living on Holt, use Bigelow as a through street from
Prospect to Holt. Our street is residential and has numerous
children on bicycles, and is also used as a route to CT
Intermediate School. The proposed zone change would only
increase the through traffic in the area.
Holt is supposed to be a main artery from 17th to the
shopping centers on Newport,but is now beginning to be
clogged with street parking from the new multi family units.
The addition of town houses will only increase this
congestion, and will locate additional children on a very
busy street. Holt becomes a major exit artery at evening
rush hour, and one neighborhood child has been in a brain
damaged state since encountering a car two years ago.
The homes purchased adjacent to Holt were desirable
because they were located on residential streets and had a main
exit on Holt to 17th and Fourth. Putting town houses on
Holt decreases our value as a residential neighborhood,
increases congestion on Holt, and increases through traffic
on our residential street.
Sincerely,
June 28, 1990
CC�,1h1U�!liv C,E1; LCOPi<iUIT
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Planning Commission,
We strongly object to the proposed zone change of Assessor's Parcel
No.'s 401-122-12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 to multi -family residential.
This proposed zone change would have a severe detrimental effect on
the surrounding neighborhood and is strictly a self-serving move on
the part of developers with no consideration for the long-time residents
of the area.
Our property, located at 14331 S. Holt, was built in 1920 and is one of
the original Tustin farmhouses. We are presently restoring our home to
its original design including more than 110 feet of wraparound veranda
porch, new landscaping, and structural improvements. These improvements
to our property will exceed $150,000. We decided to proceed with this
project because we feel preserving Tustin's historic architecture is
extremely important. The introduction of additional multi -family
dwellings into our neighborhood is not compatible with the surrounding
homes and will substantially decrease property values.
A zone change will result in an increase in traffic on Holt Avenue which
is already very heavy. Children must cross Holt Avenue to go to school.
Two children have already been hit by cars on Holt. We don't need more
speeding vehicles traveling through our residential area.
Some additional effects that would result from a zone change are:
1. Decreased Privacy - Two-story multiple family dwellings will
allow the inhabitants to have a clear view into the backyards
and bedrooms of neighboring homes.
2. Increased Noise - More traffic will create more noise.
3. Increased Street Parking - The proposed building plan does not
provide adequate parking which will result in a high volume of
unsightly street parking.
4. Degradation in Character of the Neighborhood - The friendly,
neighborly atmosphere we now enjoy will be lost with multi-
family construction.
The proposed zone change is inappropriate and unnecessary. We urge you
to consider the adverse effects it would cause on our well-established,
single-family neighborhood and deny the zone change request. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
ncerelY� _
Pam anc/` g Bunch
2 I'll"O
C%".; . .1 L
V
IMUNITY ULVLEOPMENT
�-�2 s�-Q o
Tustin Planning Commisson
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Commissoner:
/ Cf
/ U j�/p Bigelow Park
Tustin, CA 92680
June 29,1990
2
We request that you do not approve zone change 90-01
for the following reasons. With the presence of the existing
multi family units we have noticed an increase of through
traffic on our street. Rather than proceed through the
traffic lights on 17 th street- or Fourth street, condo
dwellers living on Holt, use Bigelow as a through street from
Prospect to Holt. Our street is residential and has numerous
children on bicycles, and is also used as a route to CT
Intermediate School. `1'he proposed zone change would only
increase the through traffic in the area.
Holt is supposed to be a main artery from 17th to the
shopping centers on Newport,but is now beginning to be
clogged with street parking from the new multi family units.
The addition of town houses will only increase this
conges-ion, and will locate additional children on a very
busy street. Holt becomes a major exit artery at evening
rush hour, and one neighborhood child has been in a brain
damaged state since encountering a car two years ago.
The homes purchased adjacent to Holt were desirable
because they were located on residential streets and had a main
e��it on Holt to 17th and Fourth. Putting town houses on
Holt decreases our value as a residential neighborhood,
increases congestion on Bolt, and increases through traffic
on our residential street.
Sincerely,
J tF %_ - 3 1990
ceMMUra,l y uGVULof'McNr
18252 Wellington Av.
Tustin, Ca., Ca. 92680
July 2, 1990
City of Tustin
Planning Commission,
300 Centennial Way,
Tustin, Ca., 92680
Absolute dismay is the reaction my husband and I have since
receiving the news that the property at the northeast corner
of Holt and Warren Avenue is being considered for rezoning
as Multi -Family residential.
We have lived at the corner of Holt and Wellington Avenues
since 1968. Our home is well kept and an asset to the comm-
unity. We chose to live in Tustin because of the home like
feel of the area and have felt pride and happiness in our
choice of location. Since the building of the condo -town
houses on I -fol -t we have been apprehensive about what the fu-
ture will bring. We don't want to live in a high density
housing area.
We are all aware of the ever increasing traffic, difficulties
in driving and getting anywhere, noise and pollution. Why do
we permit these wretched conditions to increase? We chose to
live in Tustin because of its beauty and charm. Why do we
choose to destroy all of this?
Many .residents of this area complain bitterly about what de-
velopers are doing to us. They seize every piece of land to
develop (destroy) with countless shopping centers, all sorts
of commercial buildings and high density housing.
Please don't be persuaded by the developers - do not permit
this change in Land Use Designation. Remember, the developers
do their job of devastating a community and then move on to
the next victim. Don't let us be a victim.
Lucille J. Sherman
1990
J COMMUNITY DINLE O
t
it ,..�.,ar
July 3, 1990
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Sirs:
Y
1v
J U L - 3 1090
rOMMI'U'NITY DEVLEOII)It EMIT
I am alarmed by the new high density zoning proposed for the
c orner of Holt and Warren. Such high density would adversely impact
traffic at that already difficult intersection and on rural Warren Avenue.
The proposed twenty-five units per acre would intrude upon a quiet,
established neighborhood of single family homes, disrupting the quality
of our lives and bringing down our property values. We and many of
our neighbors have spent several years and thousands of dollars in
improving our homes. Why should so many of us suffer loss, to benefit
so few? We moved from over -crowded Garden Grove to enjoy the
s pacious, comfortable quality of this lovely Tustin area. Please do not
take that away from us.
Sincerely yours,
Nancy Hamilton
18681 Eunice Place
Tustin, CA 92680
1 July 1900
Tustin Planning CoFmission:
?E: Proposed re --zoning on Holt :?venue
I vehemently oppose the re—zoning of 6 properties
on the northeast corner of Holt and Vlarren Avenues.
I have lived at 18492 Warren Avenue since Miarch, 19 6.
The comes on "larren are single family residences. I like
the rural atmosphere which would be destroyed if it would
permit the building of 25 residential units per acre.
This would create an enormous amount of traffic which
would create a danger to the many children in this neigh-
borhood and also it would increase the noise level.
I resent the encroachment and congestion brought
on by greedy developers who do not care about what they
would do to our countrified area. '
Thank you,
Lillian W. Kugler
18492 Warren Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
r
July 2, 1990
To: Tustin Planning Commission - In re: Re -zoning Holt Ave., Tustin
Dear Members:
As a 26 year resident and property owner located near the intersection
of Holt and Warren, I am seriously opposed to the proposed development
of the six properties on the N.E. corner of Holt and Marren.
This corner is already a very heavily traveled intersection. To
build the proposed twenty five or more units would add to this con-
gestion tremendously.
I have enjoyed the rural -like atmosphere all these years, and I
would hate for that to change. We want this area to remain sincle
family residences,
In addition, there are many small children in this neighborhood.
I feel they would further be endangered by the consideral increase
in traffic.
Please consider my opposition to this re -zoning,
Thank you.
Margie W ight
14442 Ehlen Nay
Tustin, CA 92680
To: The Tustin Planning Commission
I wish to address some of my concerns regarding the proposed zoning
change for the northeast corner of Warren/Hol t which ;,you will con-
sider
on-
sider on 7/3/90.
As a twenty year resident of Tustin (eight years at 18,422 Warren),
1 have seen the major growth which has occurred. Generally the
growth has been well planned & thought out.
But this proposal before you would have a major negative effect on
our neighborhood.
Warren already serves as a 'cut through' street for manny who wish
to avoid the major traffic snarls on the surrounding larger thorough-
fares.
horough-
fares. What would the traffic on Warren be like i f• this zoning change
would be allowed? I shudder to think. Not only would there be added
traffic with it's additional air S noise pollution our street would
be even more unsafe for children , joggers & bicyclists.
The quality of life on Warren would be greatly diminished. One of the
overridding reasons I chose to purchase a home on Warren , was that
It was and is a rural , quiet bastion right in the middle of Orange
County. On Warren one can still feel some of the charm and ambiance
which was Orange County, This would all be altered with the passage
of this zoning change.
Please consider the feelings of those of us in the barren Ave. neigh-
borhood. We aren't against change 8 growth. We have welcomed it in
past 8 look forward to it in the future. But only when it is well
thought out S doesn't impact or alter the lifestyle of existing, es-
tablished neighborhoods. To allow high density housing in the midst
of an allready established , single family neighborhood is not a
positive step toward well thought out community planning.
_
Please fu11y weigh the feel i ngs of those of us who have made our- homes
on Warren Ave. 8 consider the far reaching ramifications your decision
will have on us 8 future residents.
es ectful 1 y,
J n T. Bell
1 422 Warren
Tustin
L
�I ;; ! - '1 - - u 7/2/90
PLANNING DEPAR1fi1ENI'
TUSTIN CA.
DEAR SIRS:
WE, MY FAMILY AND I, WISH TO PROTEST THE PROPOSED RE ZONING THAT WOULD
PERMIT HIGH DENSITY INCURSION. WE LIKE THE AREA JUST AS IT IS AND HOPE
IT STAYS THAT WAY.
TN_ANKI`?G YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,
ZY TRULY Y ,
r
GEOR AND LULA TLY AND FAMILY
18391 WARREN AVE
TUSTIN CA 92680
Bruce L. Wilton, M.D.
400 W. Freedman Way
Anahcim, CA 92802
(711) '191-9337
Dear i`1s . Hamilton:
Re: Proposed re -zoning on Holt Avenue
There is little enough private single-family housing in
Tustin and the immediately adjacent area.
I do not T. ish to see my house cro,.ded out and to, -.,e -cd over
by condominiums and a,3artments, simply because I am not
wealthy enough to acquire a mansion on the summit of one
of the nearby 'rills.
Sincerely,
Bruce L. Wilton, M.D.
BLW:lra
J ; ; ,) 1Q:;:�
i _
fit: :i,:•_::, I i•t_:L..'..
i'LlSL1I1 P11 -11111L11,1 (�01111111SSC)11 ;�,� % }j1C�E_'10�:: h,1L"i`�
300 Cente►1;1 L.�1 i�'•-�V tistin, CA 92 D O
l'usLin, CA 9'680 ,lune 2`.), 1900
Dear Comml ssollor :
lde rec1l10!-I l h<�L vc>>1 c}n not Ioprove lone (2llange 90-01
01: L}1c fot.lc�`,: i ��:; rr>>s��n _, . '.` i t}1 th�� }Dre 7ence of the existinu
MIlltl family u11iLs WOhav�_� 11oti.c-d an increase of through
traffic on c>>_a r s t: reet- i;a t11er than ?proceed through the
traffic lIs on 17 t}i street or Fourth street, condo
reet from
dwellers livI _1 on Holt, use Bigelow as a through st
Prospect to holt. Our Street is residential and has numerous
children on bicycles, and is also used as a route to CT
Intermediate Sc}lool. The proposed zone change would only
increase the through traffic in the area.
Holt is supposed to IJe a main artery from 17th to the
shopping centers on Newport,but is now beginning to be
clogged with street parking from the new multi family units.
The addition of '01.11-1 houses %rill only increase this
congestion, and will locate additional children on a very
busy street. Holt becomes a major exit artery at evening
rush hour, and one neighborhood child has been in a brain
damaged state since encountering a car two years ago.
The homes purchased adjacent to Holt were desirable
because they were located on residential streets and had a main
exit on Holt to 17th and Fourth. nutting town houses on
Holt decreases our value as a residential neighborhood,
increases congestion on Holt, and increases through trafLic
on our residential street.
Sincerely,
- RECEVN N.D -
JuL - 3 1990
COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT
PON
J U 1. - 3 190
COMMUNITY GEVLEUPMENT '
do
Jill
— - -
•
Cool
L
at
1tSL ~ 3 1190
.S l! L 2 1g�0
pNj1 jLtNj-iY DULEQPmENT
�J
-tA-,
17�
ems-. c�
RECEIVED
J u 1. - 9 1990
COMMUNITY DDLEOPMENT
l Z )enhe. f. ` V e"wo 1
l S17 2 :�Nu zcvood _(J_�)a Lfe
gultiuz, C'og 9 2 G SO
TuStln Plaf)lljn�
C�imiss�or�
;ado Cen�ehnia
C/9
'1 Gtm uuri find d behalf d� �he I/2Yno✓1
rn I !� uA p rn oc"ed /t qtz abd ti'e Q P(ClrY�SS
mope n �hlv-Aj y0il
aP�osc�d � � �w�oscd zone chant -e
�n � �loJf�wcrvren aaQ.'#ta;�
more 06�doallour-
Cvovlol 4n � he deof��m�rt Our
I1.�t�-D► hd vh ooc�. l leQ�c lie ��Q n �� �
Ovperne, nei hborhoad Al H ��i�
-rhanK
�yn CJn 7G /YI
i ��
7-7-50
- 14z�e
��,.� ill `o�cow�-¢uu..,
�,uP �� �� Stmt
I
IaA�t��
I
RECEIVED
JUL- 91900
CC;M �Y "1rLEUFMEhJT
r
oo
(� ��G�� --rl .mil - -� `--� r✓ �`..�
Iry •
101,
rTON
HOLT AVE
ANA, CA 92705
L
� RJFQE»VED —
lU|�@Y��M
ww� = .°==
'
COMMUNITY D[VL8]PM[NT
-
July 5, 1990
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 926B0
Dear Sirs:
I
Subject: Request to amend general plan for multi -family residen-
tial at Northeast corner of Holt & Warren Avenues.
As the owner of property at 18141 Bigelow Park, Tustin, I would
like to express my opposition to amending the zoning for 6 par-
cels located Northeast of Holt & Warren Avenues.
In addition to not needing any more traffic, noise, pollution,
and any other number of problems stemming from this misuse of
land in the area, I find the current selection of houses on those
lots far superior to the development on Holt that has gone beyond
single-family residential.
I believe strongly in property rights, and the owner of those
parcels should have ever right to develop the land within the
confines of the current zoning. If they are not satisfied with
the quality or appearance of the existing single family dwell
-
ings, they are more than welcome to build new, but without the
change of zone that will only down grade that area.
Th k0 Ll or considering this opposition.
31. ce I y,
Daniel A. Naber
18141 Bigelow Park
Tustin, CA 92680
,f
July 5, 1990 J��� _ 9 1990
COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT
Tustin Planning Commission
300.Centennial Way
Tustin, CA- 92680
Re: Zone Change 90-01
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We moved into our home in Tustin five years ago after approxi-
mately 15 years of apartment living. We looked at homes in
various cities within Orange County and decided to settle in
Tustin because of its good community reputation, excellent school
system, land value and all around "family" atmosphere.
In the immediate area, there was one small section of condos, but
everything else was single family dwellings and it was our
understanding it would remain so.
Now, because some developer who does not reside in this area is
attempting to "make a fast buck" for his own personal gain
without regard for the permanent residents and the betterment of
our community, it is our hope that the Planning Commission and
the City of Tustin will protect its citizens by not allowing the
zoning laws to change our environment for the worse.
Multi -family housing tends to generate overpopulation, tran-
sients, increased incidents of crime and vandalism, increased
traffic, noise, traffic pollution, and drastically reduced
property values.
We personally resent this outside developer stating that our
neighborhood is deteriorated and his "condos, townhouses, apart-
ments (all synonymous)" would improve the area. On the contrary,
people who can't afford a single-family home can usually qualify
for a lower priced multi -family dwelling,.so haw does this
improve a community?
If we had wanted to continue living in apartments or that type of
atmosphere we would not have worked and scraped for so many years
to "select" this area to plant our roots. Please don't let an
developer destroy what we have struggled to achieve.
Protect your residents. Don't rezone!
�V ry truly y rs,
Thomas & Suza Hewitt
14212 Holt Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
DECEIVED -
JUL - 9 1990
COMMUNITY D&LEOPMENT
July 6, 1990
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
It is imperative that the Tustin Planning Commission do not change
the zoning frau the single family (Rl) to a multi -family zone on
Holt Avenue and Warren.
The traffic on Molt Avenue is heavy. Multi -family dwellings will
exacerbate an already impossible situation. Traffic is exceedingly
hazardous for bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles.
We urge you in good conscience to remember that a major population
that will be seriously impacted by your action was not considered
in your zoning change. The needs of the few do not weigh the needs
of many .
Yours truly,
Y
64
2f4t Z
_6r. Carney --
14111 Stratton Way
Santa Ana, CA 92705
J ILI L- 0 1900
MONIM,!MTY
Tustin Planning Commission
Tustin City Council
Subject: Holt -Warren Rezoning
1
July 6, 1990
Home ownership is a long time commitment made with the
expectation that the rules and conditions extant at the time of
purchase will not vacillate with the whims of the government. A
high density condominium -apartment development would be totally
out of character with the neighborhood and would constitute an
egregious governmental double-cross of the homeowners. It would
adversely affect traffic, crime, property values, and intangible
ambiance,
Those seeking re -zoning had no reason to believe that they could
profit from high-density development when they acquired their
property. They (and we) were told that the annexation would not
result in re -zoning!
The neighborhood is not in residential decline. All of the
property is well maintained. New families with young children are
moving in.
Please don't change the rules on us in the middle of the game.
Sincerel
W. Vernon & Jean A. Smith
14356 Brenan Wy.
Tustin, Ca. 92680
06 July 1990
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to a Notice of Public Hearing, concerning zone change 90-01.
We have very definite objections about the requested zone change. We currently Five on the site de-
scribed as Assessor's Parcel No. 8. The rezoning of Parcels 12 through 17 would directly affect our
quality of life in Tustin.
There are several reasons we decided to purchase a home in Tustin, versus areas such as Irvine, El
Toro, and Mission Viejo. One of the primary reasons was the community atmosphere that Tustin pro-
vides. We specifically wanted to be in a community which was not gated, guarded, planned or otherwise
shot out of a gun. Tustin was able to afford us this opportunity.
Secondly, but very important, was the fact that we could purchase a home with a large front and back
yard for our privacy and our children's safety and enjoyment.
We see both of these important issues being destroyed if multi -unit development is allowed to cross Holt
or Warren. When we purchased our home, approximately 5 years ago, the current townhome develop-
ment was just completing its final phase. Since completion, there has been a definite increase in traffic
and noise. There has also been at least one near fatal accident involving a pedestrian and numerous
cases of dogs and cats being hit by cars on Holt Avenue. In the last couple of years we have also
noticed an increase in trash found in our front yard, such as beer bottles, cans, and paper. If units were
built at the Holt/Warren site, the sidewalk, which does not currently cover the parcels in question, would
be extended to the corner. This would increase foot traffic past our home and would more than Likely in-
crease littering on our street and our lawn. '
We had to laugh when we heard that the developer was making their request based on the fact that the
Holt Avenue community is deteriorating and that Units would be an improvement. Practically any day that
you travel Holt, you will see home owners are making improvements to their property. Also in the last five
years many of the homes on Holt, previously owned by owners who have now retired, have been pur-
chased by younger first time buyers, like ourselves. We take pride in our homes and our community. The
developer may suggest all they like that the area is deteriorating, but the fact is, they are willing to pay
good money to suck up our land because they know it is not a deteriorating area.
We urge the Tustin Planning Commission to protect the quality of life in Tustin by not allowing developers
to push their way into an established residential neighborhood. We have also urged our neigbhors to
come to the hearing scheduled on Monday, July 9, to voice their concerns, as will we.
Sincerely,
Terry'and Carmen Barbee
14292 Holt Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705
JRr-C�i�qey
.. 6 1990
1"l pEVL���EN�
7/5/90
To: The Planning Commission - City of Tustin � �- ,(���.,,,.I�f�
yrz. .D Mufte
Subject: General Flan Amendment 90-01 "' 6 1990
ccAIM t,N Irr DEa'LEOPMENT
':!c arc stron-ly opposed to any proposal that would further
amend the 1-ingle 1,"amily Residential stasis of the Holt Ave.
neighborhood. As "lone timer residents of Tustin, we feel
that Nlult i -F amily Residential zoning should be excluded from
our older i.1cj-,rrhborh.00d.a, ,.,'e strongly recommend
the rejection of -)Il,.)r such request along Holt _i'I.ve, and its
surround ir.g en.viroii.) T
Thank you,
r"ichael and. Cynthia Sweeney
14621 IIolt Ave,
Tustin, CA 92680
t, J, P 1.
Y
01
- REMEWIVED -
J C L - 5 19900
COMMUN11TY DEVLEOPMENT
MY wife T
1. 0 Y
(
o 1 - i I. I I ,-i I 1 9 W
u 1, 1 ni it Way lI]
A 1,7W dell-ity
1 -1 v 0 oLu- netohbor-- c-rowding ill On U'
f
[•7.: J.0 Z-1 thirCl of all aCre, and
U.t I e hborhood
"Y t, h 1:1 L I i E! t, t_!1 i g
wi L,1h south of Warren were
0 "-1 V* wc,!
..,) , ! The c-ondi-
c r-, d with
I I t 1) bUilt left a
high density development
w i th I i t-, I (Dr ri o
fOl- Pal -king or C: }.l ' s play areas
a IL t, h f 1 c
t"if f ic Ot" HCjl t in reasv--!d drama tical ly and
L1.1 amcindinc--nt 90-01 are i -n need
All
u -
L. and
C T" 9 e.- 1 () t a t t -I e (7t (.-; rn (--� r of l t
to add two additiotial
171 Ty
11 Y" 1XI '-Atld 1)Ietlty of parking. This
(--f t1IC! 1(,."t a SUb�,?tantial profit
on AVCMUe to the --iddi-
t i o n,-.1 I- clen�-ity that-, TJCIUICl OCICU.t- if 42E) CiTTf-:jlj1jF,, per ac -re were
1:11111't: o I I t 1 2) 3 --) c r e.-,
If ve
o 1.) 111 11 t-. I C-.! r C- a I - 1 (,-) w ---! d t I I i ;r 14 0 L 1 .1 d C! (I L I i-1 t (�- t 0 a i i ,-:i d d -
-) cars per family) and
i a 1 5 17 d 11 i 1 a I 5 cc: t i m -i t 2
d e
-17 5 - ,, c) (_,3 p cr c) t.).1
D-4 People Per dwelling) This increase
j -D
-tly
1.,: ai I 1S 901.11k, tt,,! nego ivc
-1 L -Lj)q)ac.t the
T.I c. •N7 (,-, b o 11 o v o t a t t 1.11:
-ty valUID, Holt Will
:L.11. 1. d u c. c. o t A r Pro P C
Apartmcnt,'Condo c(,-, m p 1 'e x
C u 11) M t 1
t 11:
0-hould be the boUndary
A
furt-her Cf-.1c)--i(-.1c)/"TC'I,!Illlonle/Ap�ll-tn)ent- developmen-t-, Since
(--)dwt-�11in,-T;z! coutla of W,�-.irren are of this type, we
-C
pro', C-... I'll 1� -111�! "---illglE! faI1111Y -hOMt--S in OUr neighbc)r-
(-.)f NI',--irren Avenuo, •all well maill-
cl.tic-Ility- of t
,3 he area
Y
e6 C
"I
?"f
J LT
,,-)-.-.ej)h atid K'J0,1hy